Minister of Higher Education and Training and Another v South African Commercial, Catering and Allied Workers Union and Others (JA13/17) [2017] ZALAC 27; (2017) 38 ILJ 1967 (LAC) (16 May 2017)

Minister of Higher Education and Training and Another v South African Commercial, Catering and Allied Workers Union and Others (JA13/17) [2017] ZALAC 27; (2017) 38 ILJ 1967 (LAC) (16 May 2017)

The Labour Appeal Court held that the Minister's decision to appoint an administrator under s15 of the Skills Development Act was not supported by sufficient evidence of financial mismanagement or failure to perform functions as required by the statute. The qualified audit opinions cited by the appellants were limited in scope and did not justify the drastic intervention. The respondents provided comprehensive remedial steps and explanations, which were ignored by the Minister. The court found that the preconditions for the exercise of powers under s15 were not met, and the Minister acted outside the scope of his statutory powers and contrary to the principle of legality. The decision...

Citation
[2017] ZALAC 27
Parties
Appellant: Minister of Higher Education and Training; Appellant: Director-General Higher Education and Training; Respondent: South African Commercial, Catering and Allied Workers Union; Respondent: Entertainment Catering Commercial and Allied Workers Union of South Africa; Respondent: Federal Council of Retail and Allied Workers; Respondent: Nozioho Pearl Maphoshe and 23 Others
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 May 2017
Case Number
JA13/17
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment and S18 Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel. Cross-appeal dismissed.
Judges
Waglay JP, Davis JA, Landman JA
Legal Topics
Skills Development Act, Principle of Legality, Administrative Action, Review of Ministerial Decision, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
Administrative Law Labour Law Skills Development Act Principle of Legality Administrative Action Review of Ministerial Decision Promotion of Administrative Justice Act

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister of Higher Education and Training

Appellant

Director-General Higher Education and Training

Appellant

South African Commercial, Catering and Allied Workers Union

Respondent

Entertainment Catering Commercial and Allied Workers Union of South Africa

Respondent

Federal Council of Retail and Allied Workers

Respondent

Nozioho Pearl Maphoshe and 23 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment and S18 Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister's decision to appoint an administrator under s15 of the Skills Development Act was lawful.
  2. 2 Whether the preconditions for the exercise of powers under s15 of the SDA were met.
  3. 3 Whether the decision constituted administrative action under PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court held that the Minister's decision to appoint an administrator under s15 of the Skills Development Act was not supported by sufficient evidence of financial mismanagement or failure to perform functions as required by the statute. The qualified audit opinions cited by the appellants were limited in scope and did not justify the drastic intervention. The respondents provided comprehensive remedial steps and explanations, which were ignored by the Minister. The court found that the preconditions for the exercise of powers under s15 were not met, and the Minister acted outside the scope of his statutory powers and contrary to the principle of legality. The decision...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel. Cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The cross-appeal is dismissed.