Motale v The Citizen 1978 (Pty) Ltd and Others (J2819/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 22; [2017] 5 BLLR 511 (LC) (27 January 2017)

Motale v The Citizen 1978 (Pty) Ltd and Others (J2819/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 22; [2017] 5 BLLR 511 (LC) (27 January 2017)

The court found that the applicant's employment contract specifically incorporated the disciplinary code and procedure, which entitled him to a formal disciplinary hearing before dismissal. The respondents failed to comply with these contractual obligations by summarily terminating the applicant's employment without affording him the required hearing. The court rejected the respondents' argument that incompatibility and breakdown of trust justified bypassing the disciplinary process, noting that the alleged breakdown was rooted in accusations of misconduct. The court held that the termination constituted a breach of contract and ordered reinstatement of the applicant, with specific...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 22
Parties
Applicant: Steven Motale; Respondent: The Citizen 1978 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Eureka Zandberg; Respondent: Piet Greyling; Respondent: Paul Jenkins
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 January 2017
Case Number
J2819/16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Application granted in part; termination of employment set aside; applicant reinstated on suspension pending compliance with disciplinary procedure; costs awarded to applicant.
Judges
D H Gush
Legal Topics
Breach of Employment Contract, Disciplinary Code Compliance, Specific Performance, Editorial Independence
Labour Law Breach of Employment Contract Disciplinary Code Compliance Specific Performance Editorial Independence

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Motale

Applicant

The Citizen 1978 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Eureka Zandberg

Respondent

Piet Greyling

Respondent

Paul Jenkins

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the applicant's employment contract constituted a breach of contract and disciplinary code.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to a disciplinary hearing before dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the employer's conduct violated section 16 of the Constitution regarding editorial independence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's employment contract specifically incorporated the disciplinary code and procedure, which entitled him to a formal disciplinary hearing before dismissal. The respondents failed to comply with these contractual obligations by summarily terminating the applicant's employment without affording him the required hearing. The court rejected the respondents' argument that incompatibility and breakdown of trust justified bypassing the disciplinary process, noting that the alleged breakdown was rooted in accusations of misconduct. The court held that the termination constituted a breach of contract and ordered reinstatement of the applicant, with specific...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; termination of employment set aside; applicant reinstated on suspension pending compliance with disciplinary procedure; costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • It is declared that the decision of the respondent to terminate the applicant's contract of employment is a breach of the employment contract read with the first respondent's disciplinary code procedure.
  • The termination of the applicant's employment is set aside and the applicant is reinstated in the first respondent's employ in the same position that the applicant was in at the date of the termination of his contract. The applicant is accordingly reinstated on suspension pending compliance by the respondents with...