Mlokothi v Trollip and Others (193/2017) [2017] ZAECPEHC 43 (5 September 2017)

Mlokothi v Trollip and Others (193/2017) [2017] ZAECPEHC 43 (5 September 2017)

The court held that although the applicant acknowledged an employment relationship, the claim as pleaded was rooted in administrative action, not exclusively a labour dispute. However, the applicant's lack of candour regarding his resignation from SITA and the existence of pending disciplinary proceedings rendered his appointment invalid. The council's rescission of the appointment was justified and not arbitrary, as the applicant had misrepresented material facts in his application. The court found no substance in the applicant's contention that the rescission was unlawful or contravened applicable regulations. The application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2017] ZAECPEHC 43
Parties
Applicant: Vuyo Mlokothi; Respondent: Athol Trollip; Respondent: Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Johann Mettler
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 September 2017
Case Number
193/2017
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment After Opposed Motion
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Chetty
Legal Topics
Municipal Manager Appointment, Ultra Vires Decision, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Labour Court Jurisdiction, Misrepresentation, Local Government Systems Act
Administrative Law Labour Law Municipal Manager Appointment Ultra Vires Decision Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Labour Court Jurisdiction Misrepresentation Local Government Systems 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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vuyo Mlokothi

Applicant

Athol Trollip

Respondent

Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Johann Mettler

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment After Opposed Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the rescission of the applicant's appointment as municipal manager constitutes administrative action reviewable under PAJA.
  2. 2 Whether the council's rescission resolution was arbitrary, unlawful, or ultra vires.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's conduct and disclosures justified the council's decision to rescind his appointment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that although the applicant acknowledged an employment relationship, the claim as pleaded was rooted in administrative action, not exclusively a labour dispute. However, the applicant's lack of candour regarding his resignation from SITA and the existence of pending disciplinary proceedings rendered his appointment invalid. The council's rescission of the appointment was justified and not arbitrary, as the applicant had misrepresented material facts in his application. The court found no substance in the applicant's contention that the rescission was unlawful or contravened applicable regulations. The application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, including that of two (2) counsel.