Mathole and Others v Governing Body of the CCMA and Others (J2722/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 429; (2018) 39 ILJ 1079 (LC) (20 November 2017)

Mathole and Others v Governing Body of the CCMA and Others (J2722/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 429; (2018) 39 ILJ 1079 (LC) (20 November 2017)

The court found that Mr. Mathole lacked locus standi to bring proceedings either in his own name or on behalf of others, as he failed to demonstrate that he was a bona fide union official or otherwise entitled to represent the ex-employees. HOCAFAWU had disowned Mathole, and his own admissions revealed that he and his associate solicited fees from vulnerable ex-employees in contravention of statutory provisions. The court held that locus standi is a threshold requirement and, absent proof thereof, it was unnecessary to consider the merits of the case. The application was dismissed, and Mathole was prohibited from instituting further proceedings against the respondents until costs were...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 429
Parties
Applicant: Ephraim Mathole & Others; Respondent: Governing Body of the CCMA; Respondent: Commissioner Eva Ngobeni N.O; Respondent: Commissioner Setlago Morwa N.O; Respondent: Foundation/PEN/Eiendom Belegging/CBD Residency; Respondent: CBD Residency
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 November 2017
Case Number
J2722/17
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment on Urgent Application for Interim Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale against Mr. Mathole personally.
Judges
E Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Representation Before Labour Court, Representation Before Ccma, Solicitation of Fees, Trade Union Status, Abuse of Process
Labour Law Civil Procedure Locus Standi Representation Before Labour Court Representation Before Ccma Solicitation of Fees Trade Union Status Abuse of Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ephraim Mathole & Others

Applicant

Governing Body of the CCMA

Respondent

Commissioner Eva Ngobeni N.O

Respondent

Commissioner Setlago Morwa N.O

Respondent

Foundation/PEN/Eiendom Belegging/CBD Residency

Respondent

CBD Residency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment on Urgent Application for Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant, Mr. Mathole, has locus standi to bring proceedings in his own name or on behalf of others before the Labour Court and CCMA.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is a bona fide union official entitled to represent employees.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant and his associate solicited fees in contravention of statutory provisions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr. Mathole lacked locus standi to bring proceedings either in his own name or on behalf of others, as he failed to demonstrate that he was a bona fide union official or otherwise entitled to represent the ex-employees. HOCAFAWU had disowned Mathole, and his own admissions revealed that he and his associate solicited fees from vulnerable ex-employees in contravention of statutory provisions. The court held that locus standi is a threshold requirement and, absent proof thereof, it was unnecessary to consider the merits of the case. The application was dismissed, and Mathole was prohibited from instituting further proceedings against the respondents until costs were...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale against Mr. Mathole personally.

Orders

  • The application from the bar to postpone the proceedings is refused.
  • The applicant's urgent application is dismissed, specifically on the grounds that Mr. Ephraim Mathole lacks the requisite locus standi to bring the application either in his name or in the name of other individuals he purports to represent.