Michael and Another v Phakisa Technical Service (Pty) Ltd and Another (JS282/14, JS280/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 73 (7 March 2017)

Michael and Another v Phakisa Technical Service (Pty) Ltd and Another (JS282/14, JS280/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 73 (7 March 2017)

The court found that the respondents were not in contempt of the reinstatement orders. Although the applicants were not placed back at Wekeba due to restructuring and lack of available positions, the respondents made genuine attempts to reinstate them at alternative sites on the same terms and conditions. The impossibility of reinstatement at the original site was not attributable to the respondents' fault. The applicants' refusal to accept alternative placements was unreasonable, and the respondents' conduct did not amount to wilful or mala fide non-compliance. The court orders for reinstatement remain in force, but the applicants are not entitled to remuneration for the period during...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 73
Parties
Applicant: Zitha Bongani Michael; Applicant: Phumzile Mlenzana; Respondent: Phakisa Technical Service (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Christo Pierre Nolte
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 March 2017
Case Number
JS282/14, JS208/14
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Final Judgment on Consolidated Contempt Application
Outcome
Application for contempt is dismissed. Respondents found not to be in contempt of the Labour Court orders.
Judges
E Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Unfair Dismissal, Reinstatement, Impossibility of Performance, Section 193 Lra
Labour Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Unfair Dismissal Reinstatement Impossibility of Performance Section 193 Lra

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zitha Bongani Michael

Applicant

Phumzile Mlenzana

Applicant

Phakisa Technical Service (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Christo Pierre Nolte

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Final Judgment on Consolidated Contempt Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were in contempt of the Labour Court orders requiring reinstatement of the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' attempts to reinstate the applicants at alternative sites complied with the court orders.
  3. 3 Whether impossibility of performance due to restructuring at the client site excuses non-compliance with reinstatement orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents were not in contempt of the reinstatement orders. Although the applicants were not placed back at Wekeba due to restructuring and lack of available positions, the respondents made genuine attempts to reinstate them at alternative sites on the same terms and conditions. The impossibility of reinstatement at the original site was not attributable to the respondents' fault. The applicants' refusal to accept alternative placements was unreasonable, and the respondents' conduct did not amount to wilful or mala fide non-compliance. The court orders for reinstatement remain in force, but the applicants are not entitled to remuneration for the period during...

Court Disposition

Application for contempt is dismissed. Respondents found not to be in contempt of the Labour Court orders.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents are found not to have been in contempt of the court orders issued on 24 February 2016 and 27 October 2015 under case numbers JS282/14 and JS208/14.
  • The rule nisi issued on 11 March 2016 under case number JS208/14 is discharged.