Matlala v National Commissioner of the South African Police Services and Another (J 2743/11) [2011] ZALCJHB 247 (6 December 2011)
- Citation
- [2011] ZALCJHB 247
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- R Lagrange
- Case number
- J 2743/11
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- R Lagrange
- Case number
- J 2743/11
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the respondents failed to comply with Regulation 13(2) of the SAPS Regulations when imposing the applicant's suspension without pay. The evidence showed that only the seriousness of the alleged offence was considered, without substantial evidence that the case against the applicant was so strong as to justify suspension without pay. Furthermore, the applicant's representations were not adequately considered. As a result, the suspension without pay was set aside pending the outcome of the unfair labour practice dispute.
Court disposition
Application granted. Suspension without pay set aside pending the outcome of the unfair labour practice dispute.
Orders
- The applicant’s suspension without pay is set aside pending the outcome of the unfair labour practice dispute referred to the Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council on 25 November 2011.
- The respondent must pay the costs of the application.
02
Material facts
Parties
Josias Matlala
Applicant Counsel: L M MalanNational Commissioner of the South African Police Services
Respondent Counsel: B M LecoseProvincial Commissioner, Gauteng Mzwandile Petros
Respondent Counsel: B M Lecose03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Relief Pending Outcome of Unfair Labour Practice Dispute
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the respondents complied with Regulation 13(2) of the SAPS Regulations when imposing a precautionary suspension without pay.
- 02
Whether the applicant's representations against suspension without pay were properly considered.
- 03
Whether the suspension without pay should be set aside pending the outcome of the unfair labour practice dispute.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the respondents failed to comply with Regulation 13(2) of the SAPS Regulations when imposing a precautionary suspension without pay. He contended that his representations against suspension were not properly considered and that there was no substantial evidence to justify the suspension. The applicant sought the setting aside of the suspension and payment of costs.
- Respondent
- The respondents maintained that the seriousness of the alleged offence justified the precautionary suspension. They argued that the disciplinary action was warranted and that the suspension was imposed in accordance with the relevant regulations. The respondents also undertook not to evict the applicant from his residence pending the outcome of the dispute.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Regulation 13(2) of the SAPS Regulations
A precautionary suspension must comply with the requirements of Regulation 13(2) of the SAPS Regulations, including consideration of representations and reasonable grounds for the suspension.
- 02
Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995
The employer must act fairly and consider all relevant circumstances before imposing a suspension without pay.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the respondents failed to comply with Regulation 13(2) of the SAPS Regulations when imposing the applicant's suspension without pay. The evidence showed that only the seriousness of the alleged offence was considered, without substantial evidence that the case against the applicant was so strong as to justify suspension without pay. Furthermore, the applicant's representations were not adequately considered. As a result, the suspension without pay was set aside pending the outcome of the unfair labour practice dispute.
Obiter and limits
- The respondent's undertaking not to evict the applicant from his residence pending the outcome of the dispute rendered an order on this aspect unnecessary.
Court disposition
Application granted. Suspension without pay set aside pending the outcome of the unfair labour practice dispute.
- The applicant’s suspension without pay is set aside pending the outcome of the unfair labour practice dispute referred to the Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council on 25 November 2011.
- The respondent must pay the costs of the application.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court Johannesburg
Judgment
IN
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN)
Case: J 2743/11
In the matter between:
JOSIAS MATLALA ......................................................................Applicant
and
NATIONAL COMMISSIONER
OF THE
SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES .........................First Respondent
PROVINCIAL COMMISSIONER, GAUTENG
MZWANDILE PETROS ...................................................First Respondent
JUDGMENT
LAGRANGE, J:
Having considered the matter, I find that:
The court must to be satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondents had not acted in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 13(2) of the SAPS Regulations Governing the imposition of a Precautionary suspension.
In deciding to impose a precautionary suspension, the respondents are obliged to act in accordance with the requirements of the said regulation.
The evidence showed that the respondents only considered the seriousness of the offence relating to which they were contemplating disciplinary action against the applicant.
However, there was no substantial evidence to demonstratethe basis on which the respondents were satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the case against the employee was so strong it was likely that that he would be convicted of a crime and dismissed.
It is also not clear that the applicant’s representations against being suspended without pay were in fact considered.
It is further recorded that the respondent has undertaken that the applicant shall not be evicted from his residence located at no 604 SAPS Residential Building, Suiderland Flat, pending the outcome of the unfair labour practice. Accordingly, an order in respect of this relief is unnecessary.
Order
Accordingly, it is ordered that:
The applicant’s suspension without pay is set aside pending the outcome of the unfair labour practice dispute which the applicant referred to the Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council on 25 November 2011.
The respondent must pay the costs of the application.
ROBERT LAGRANGE
JUDGE OF THE LABOUR
COURT
Date of hearing : 5 December 2011
Date of judgment: 6 December 2011
Appearances:
For the applicant : L M Malan instructed by Allardyce & Partners
For the respondent: B M Lecose instructed by the State Attorney
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.