Mokgata and Others v Minister of the Department of Defence and Military Veterans and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 207; 58708/2020 (13 March 2023)

Mokgata and Others v Minister of the Department of Defence and Military Veterans and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 207; 58708/2020 (13 March 2023)

The court found that the rotational policy for Reserve Force Members was valid, reasonable, and lawfully enforced. There was no evidence of any waiver or promise of permanent employment, nor any clear, unambiguous representation by a competent authority that could give rise to a legitimate expectation. The applicants' continuous call-up contracts were subject to renewal and did not create permanent employment rights. The salary dispute was not proven on a balance of probabilities, as documentary evidence was lacking and the respondents provided schedules of payments. The applicants remain Reserve Force Members and are subject to the rotational policy. The application for review and all...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 207
Parties
Applicant: Lesibana Phillemon Mokgata; Applicant: Marcus Kgoke Mokgokolo; Applicant: Sesi Linah Mabena; Applicant: Busisiwe Dyna Masimula; Applicant: Simpiwe Mgonondi; Applicant: Tebogo Donald Bopape; Applicant: Wilky Maleka Matsemela; Applicant: Francinah Ntabiseng Baloyi; Applicant: Vincent Sebeya; Applicant: Octovia Nompi Thabethe; Applicant: Thulane Jeffrey Sonquolo; Applicant: Freddy Mbewana Majolo; Applicant: Thabo Edwin Lethlage; Applicant: Lebogang Welmina Mashiane; Applicant: Rantshia Adam Sefatsa; Respondent: Minister of the Department of Defence and Military Veterans; Respondent: Secretary of Defence; Respondent: Chief of the South African National Defence Force; Respondent: Surgeon-General of the South African Military Health Services; Respondent: Officer Commanding of the South African Military Health Services Headquarters
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 March 2023
Case Number
58708/2020
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Opposed Motion; Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
G Nel
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Legitimate Expectation, Review of Administrative Action, Rotational Employment Policy, Remuneration Dispute
Administrative Law Labour Law Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Legitimate Expectation Review of Administrative Action Rotational Employment Policy Remuneration Dispute

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lesibana Phillemon Mokgata

Applicant

Marcus Kgoke Mokgokolo

Applicant

Sesi Linah Mabena

Applicant

Busisiwe Dyna Masimula

Applicant

Simpiwe Mgonondi

Applicant

Tebogo Donald Bopape

Applicant

Wilky Maleka Matsemela

Applicant

Francinah Ntabiseng Baloyi

Applicant

Vincent Sebeya

Applicant

Octovia Nompi Thabethe

Applicant

Thulane Jeffrey Sonquolo

Applicant

Freddy Mbewana Majolo

Applicant

Thabo Edwin Lethlage

Applicant

Lebogang Welmina Mashiane

Applicant

Rantshia Adam Sefatsa

Applicant

Minister of the Department of Defence and Military Veterans

Respondent

Secretary of Defence

Respondent

Chief of the South African National Defence Force

Respondent

Surgeon-General of the South African Military Health Services

Respondent

Officer Commanding of the South African Military Health Services Headquarters

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Opposed Motion; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the enforcement of the rotational policy for Reserve Force Members was fair and reasonable.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants had a legitimate expectation of permanent employment at the South African Military Health Services Headquarters.
  3. 3 Whether the reduction of applicants' salaries was lawful and reviewable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the rotational policy for Reserve Force Members was valid, reasonable, and lawfully enforced. There was no evidence of any waiver or promise of permanent employment, nor any clear, unambiguous representation by a competent authority that could give rise to a legitimate expectation. The applicants' continuous call-up contracts were subject to renewal and did not create permanent employment rights. The salary dispute was not proven on a balance of probabilities, as documentary evidence was lacking and the respondents provided schedules of payments. The applicants remain Reserve Force Members and are subject to the rotational policy. The application for review and all...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants, jointly and severally, are to pay the costs of this application.