Mogoera-Leepile and Others v Free State Gambling and Liquor Authority and Another (2023/2012) [2013] ZAFSHC 184 (24 October 2013)

Mogoera-Leepile and Others v Free State Gambling and Liquor Authority and Another (2023/2012) [2013] ZAFSHC 184 (24 October 2013)

The court found that the applicants were not employed by the Free State Liquor Authority but were seconded by the Department of Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs. There was no employment contract between the applicants and the Liquor Authority, and the migration and placement agreement did not apply to them. The applicants failed to make out a proper case for specific performance, as the evidence did not establish their entitlement under the agreement. The court emphasised that secondment does not create an employment relationship with the host entity. The application was dismissed, but the order was qualified as absolution from the instance, not a final...

Citation
[2013] ZAFSHC 184
Parties
Applicant: S.S. Mogoera-Leepile; Applicant: K.P. Mokoena; Applicant: M.P. Kambule; Applicant: P.M. Motsitsi; Respondent: Free State Gambling and Liquor Authority; Respondent: MEC: Free State Department of Economic Development, Tourism & Environmental Affairs
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 October 2013
Case Number
2023/2012
Procedural Posture
Specific Performance Application / First Instance Motion Proceedings
Outcome
Application dismissed with absolution from the instance; each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
N. Snellenburg
Legal Topics
Section 197 Transfer, Specific Performance, Collective Agreement, Secondment, Costs Order
Labour Law Civil Procedure Section 197 Transfer Specific Performance Collective Agreement Secondment Costs Order

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.S. Mogoera-Leepile

Applicant

K.P. Mokoena

Applicant

M.P. Kambule

Applicant

P.M. Motsitsi

Applicant

Free State Gambling and Liquor Authority

Respondent

MEC: Free State Department of Economic Development, Tourism & Environmental Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Specific Performance Application / First Instance Motion Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to specific performance of the migration and placement agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were employees of the Free State Liquor Authority or merely seconded by the Department.
  3. 3 Whether the collective agreement applies to the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were not employed by the Free State Liquor Authority but were seconded by the Department of Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs. There was no employment contract between the applicants and the Liquor Authority, and the migration and placement agreement did not apply to them. The applicants failed to make out a proper case for specific performance, as the evidence did not establish their entitlement under the agreement. The court emphasised that secondment does not create an employment relationship with the host entity. The application was dismissed, but the order was qualified as absolution from the instance, not a final...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with absolution from the instance; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party is to pay his or its own cost of the application.