Mokoena v Merafong Municipality and Others (J1788/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 226; (2020) 41 ILJ 234 (LC) (13 September 2019)

Mokoena v Merafong Municipality and Others (J1788/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 226; (2020) 41 ILJ 234 (LC) (13 September 2019)

The court held that it is not its function to categorize the nature of the allegations made by the employer against the applicant or to dictate the process the employer must follow. The employer retains the prerogative to decide whether to treat conduct as misconduct or poor performance and to follow the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 226
Parties
Applicant: Morakane Mokoena; Respondent: Merafong Municipality; Respondent: Speaker of the Merafong Municipality; Respondent: Executive Mayor of the Merafong Municipality
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 September 2019
Case Number
J1788/19
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Precautionary Suspension, Poor Performance, Disciplinary Procedure, Jurisdiction, Costs Award
Labour Law Precautionary Suspension Poor Performance Disciplinary Procedure Jurisdiction Costs Award

Source-derived case record

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

Morakane Mokoena

Applicant

Merafong Municipality

Respondent

Speaker of the Merafong Municipality

Respondent

Executive Mayor of the Merafong Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can order the employer to treat allegations against the applicant as poor performance rather than misconduct.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has a clear right to dictate the process the employer must follow regarding allegations against her.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to intervene in the employer's ongoing disciplinary process at this stage.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it is not its function to categorize the nature of the allegations made by the employer against the applicant or to dictate the process the employer must follow. The employer retains the prerogative to decide whether to treat conduct as misconduct or poor performance and to follow the corresponding procedures. The applicant failed to establish a clear right to the relief sought, namely to compel the employer to treat the allegations as poor performance and not misconduct. The court found no enabling provision authorizing such intervention and dismissed the application. Regarding costs, the court determined that fairness required the applicant to bear the costs, as the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.