Moleko v Joe Grabi Economic Development Agency (Pty) Ltd and Another (P240/14) [2014] ZALCPE 23 (1 August 2014)

Moleko v Joe Grabi Economic Development Agency (Pty) Ltd and Another (P240/14) [2014] ZALCPE 23 (1 August 2014)

The court found that the first respondent's answering affidavit was invalid as the deponent lacked authority under the memorandum of incorporation, rendering the application effectively unopposed. The disciplinary enquiry chairperson exceeded his powers and infringed the applicant's right to be heard, constituting a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] ZALCPE 23
Parties
Applicant: Nthabiseng Moleko; Respondent: Joe Gqabi Economic Development Agency (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Z Mtyobo
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 August 2014
Case Number
P240/14
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Order Following Withdrawal of Urgent Application
Outcome
Costs order granted in favour of the applicant; application withdrawn as moot due to dismissal.
Judges
Lallie
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Enquiry, Reviewable Irregularity, Authority to Litigate, Costs Order, Waiver of Right to Be Heard
Labour Law Disciplinary Enquiry Reviewable Irregularity Authority to Litigate Costs Order Waiver of Right to Be Heard

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nthabiseng Moleko

Applicant

Joe Gqabi Economic Development Agency (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Z Mtyobo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Order Following Withdrawal of Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent's deponent had authority to oppose the application on its behalf.
  2. 2 Whether the disciplinary enquiry chairperson exceeded his powers and infringed the applicant's right to be heard.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to a costs order after withdrawing the urgent application due to her dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent's answering affidavit was invalid as the deponent lacked authority under the memorandum of incorporation, rendering the application effectively unopposed. The disciplinary enquiry chairperson exceeded his powers and infringed the applicant's right to be heard, constituting a reviewable irregularity and exceptional circumstances justifying court intervention. The applicant had no alternative effective remedy and would have suffered greater prejudice had the application been refused. As the applicant withdrew the urgent application only because she was dismissed, she would have been successful but for the dismissal. Both law and fairness require...

Court Disposition

Costs order granted in favour of the applicant; application withdrawn as moot due to dismissal.

Orders

  • The First Respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's costs.