Matlhabe and Another v Mogalakwena Local Municipality and Another (J37/2024) [2024] ZALCJHB 16 (24 January 2024)

Matlhabe and Another v Mogalakwena Local Municipality and Another (J37/2024) [2024] ZALCJHB 16 (24 January 2024)

The Court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate genuine urgency, as the grounds for urgency were self-created and previously disposed of by Prinsloo J. The applicants did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay between the Chairperson's ruling and the relaunch of their application. The Court held that the applicants could obtain substantial redress in due course and that their application constituted an abuse of the urgent roll, amounting to a second attempt based on the same facts and relief. Consequently, the requirements for urgent relief were not satisfied, and the application was struck off the roll.

Citation
[2024] ZALCJHB 16
Parties
Applicant: Reimetse Saltiel Matlhabe; Applicant: Peggy Lebelo; Respondent: Mogalakwena Local Municipality; Respondent: Tebogo Malau N.O
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 January 2024
Case Number
J37/2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Relief to Stay Disciplinary Proceedings Pending Leave to Appeal and Review Application
Outcome
Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against applicants.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Disciplinary Proceedings, Precautionary Suspension, Self Created Urgency
Labour Law Civil Procedure Urgent Interdict Disciplinary Proceedings Precautionary Suspension Self Created Urgency

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reimetse Saltiel Matlhabe

Applicant

Peggy Lebelo

Applicant

Mogalakwena Local Municipality

Respondent

Tebogo Malau N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Relief to Stay Disciplinary Proceedings Pending Leave to Appeal and Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to stay disciplinary proceedings is urgent and warrants the Court's intervention.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants will suffer irreparable harm or lack substantial redress if the matter is not heard urgently.
  3. 3 Whether the urgency claimed by the applicants is self-created.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate genuine urgency, as the grounds for urgency were self-created and previously disposed of by Prinsloo J. The applicants did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay between the Chairperson's ruling and the relaunch of their application. The Court held that the applicants could obtain substantial redress in due course and that their application constituted an abuse of the urgent roll, amounting to a second attempt based on the same facts and relief. Consequently, the requirements for urgent relief were not satisfied, and the application was struck off the roll.

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll for lack of urgency; costs awarded against applicants.

Orders

  • The applicants' application is struck off the roll on account of lack of urgency.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of this application.