Moseya v Msunduzi Municipality (D1282/13) [2017] ZALCD 7 (3 February 2017)

Moseya v Msunduzi Municipality (D1282/13) [2017] ZALCD 7 (3 February 2017)

The court found that, despite the appointment of the applicant contravening section 66(3) of the Municipal Systems Act, the respondent at all material times regarded the applicant as having been appointed to the post and accepted his services. Applying the principle from Oudekraal, the appointment must be treated as valid until set aside. The respondent acknowledged the applicant's entitlement to the salary and did not take steps to set aside the appointment during the relevant period. The applicant limited his claim to the period from his appointment to November 2013, and there was no evidence that the amount claimed was incorrectly calculated or that the claim had prescribed....

Citation
[2017] ZALCD 7
Parties
Applicant: Pius Jabulani Moseya; Respondent: Msunduzi Municipality
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 February 2017
Case Number
D1282/13
Procedural Posture
Bcea Section 77 Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted.
Judges
D H Gush
Legal Topics
Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Municipal Systems Act, Unlawful Appointment, Remuneration Claim, Prescription of Claims
Labour Law Civil Procedure Basic Conditions of Employment Act Municipal Systems Act Unlawful Appointment Remuneration Claim Prescription of Claims

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pius Jabulani Moseya

Applicant

Msunduzi Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bcea Section 77 Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to remuneration for the period he was appointed as Operations Manager: Waste Management.
  2. 2 Whether the appointment of the applicant was invalid due to non-compliance with section 66(3) of the Municipal Systems Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's claim for remuneration has prescribed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, despite the appointment of the applicant contravening section 66(3) of the Municipal Systems Act, the respondent at all material times regarded the applicant as having been appointed to the post and accepted his services. Applying the principle from Oudekraal, the appointment must be treated as valid until set aside. The respondent acknowledged the applicant's entitlement to the salary and did not take steps to set aside the appointment during the relevant period. The applicant limited his claim to the period from his appointment to November 2013, and there was no evidence that the amount claimed was incorrectly calculated or that the claim had prescribed....

Court Disposition

Application granted.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant the amount of R240,379.86 together with interest thereon from the date on which the applicant filed this application.
  • There is no order as to costs.