Mokgatla and Others v South African Municipal Workers Union and Others (14515/2014) [2015] ZAKZDHC 12 (20 February 2015)

Mokgatla and Others v South African Municipal Workers Union and Others (14515/2014) [2015] ZAKZDHC 12 (20 February 2015)

The applicants failed to establish that they held office within the union structures at the relevant time, as their terms had expired or they had been lawfully removed in accordance with the union's constitution. Previous court orders only restored their membership, not their office bearer status. The right to participate in union meetings is contractual and depends on holding office, which none of the applicants did when the application was brought. The court cannot reinstate them to positions they no longer held due to expiry of term or lawful removal. Accordingly, the applicants were not entitled to the relief sought, and the rule nisi was discharged with costs, including costs of two...

Citation
[2015] ZAKZDHC 12
Parties
Applicant: Mohau Mokgatla; Applicant: Nomfezo Mdingi; Applicant: Dion Makhura; Applicant: Phumlile Shange; Applicant: Sello Selepe; Applicant: Lance Veott; Applicant: Zakhele Khumalo; Applicant: Wycliff Mabusela; Applicant: Kennedy Nkosi; Applicant: Kgosi Makwati; Applicant: Thabisile Manqele; Applicant: Ntokozo Nzuza; Applicant: Mampeti Malete; Respondent: South African Municipal Workers Union; Respondent: Samuel Malope; Respondent: John Dlamini; Respondent: Lorraine Baitsiwe; Respondent: Walter Theledi; Respondent: Moses Miya
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 February 2015
Case Number
14515/2014
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Rule Nisi Confirmation Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed; rule nisi discharged with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed.
Judges
G.H. Penzhorn
Legal Topics
Union Membership, Interdict, Expulsion and Suspension, Constitutional Interpretation, Reinstatement, Costs Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Union Membership Interdict Expulsion and Suspension Constitutional Interpretation Reinstatement Costs Award

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohau Mokgatla

Applicant

Nomfezo Mdingi

Applicant

Dion Makhura

Applicant

Phumlile Shange

Applicant

Sello Selepe

Applicant

Lance Veott

Applicant

Zakhele Khumalo

Applicant

Wycliff Mabusela

Applicant

Kennedy Nkosi

Applicant

Kgosi Makwati

Applicant

Thabisile Manqele

Applicant

Ntokozo Nzuza

Applicant

Mampeti Malete

Applicant

South African Municipal Workers Union

Respondent

Samuel Malope

Respondent

John Dlamini

Respondent

Lorraine Baitsiwe

Respondent

Walter Theledi

Respondent

Moses Miya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Rule Nisi Confirmation Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were entitled to attend and participate in the Central Executive Committee (CEC) and Finance Committee (FINCOM) meetings of the first respondent at the relevant time.
  2. 2 Whether previous court orders setting aside expulsion and suspension of the applicants restored their positions as office bearers within the union.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants made out a case for the relief claimed, including interdicts and setting aside meetings.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish that they held office within the union structures at the relevant time, as their terms had expired or they had been lawfully removed in accordance with the union's constitution. Previous court orders only restored their membership, not their office bearer status. The right to participate in union meetings is contractual and depends on holding office, which none of the applicants did when the application was brought. The court cannot reinstate them to positions they no longer held due to expiry of term or lawful removal. Accordingly, the applicants were not entitled to the relief sought, and the rule nisi was discharged with costs, including costs of two...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; rule nisi discharged with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed.

Orders

  • The rule nisi is discharged.
  • Applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application, including the costs of two counsel where employed.