Motitswe v City of Tshwane (J 88/2013) [2013] ZALCJHB 353; (2014) 35 ILJ 3458 (LC) (24 January 2013)

Motitswe v City of Tshwane (J 88/2013) [2013] ZALCJHB 353; (2014) 35 ILJ 3458 (LC) (24 January 2013)

The applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to have his suspension uplifted in accordance with the disciplinary regulations, as there was serious doubt whether those regulations applied to him. He did not make representations to avoid his suspension when given the opportunity, thereby abandoning an available alternative remedy. The balance of convenience favoured the respondent, as the risk of a volatile situation at work outweighed the prejudice to the applicant of being suspended. The respondent's counter-application was struck off for lack of urgency, as it was brought without proper notice and expedience alone does not justify urgency.

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 353
Parties
Applicant: Motitswe Benjamin P Bennito; Respondent: City of Tshwane
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 January 2013
Case Number
J 88/2013
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application and Counter Application on Urgency
Outcome
The applicant's urgent application to uplift his suspension was dismissed. The respondent's counter-application was struck off the roll for lack of urgency.
Judges
R Lagrange
Legal Topics
Urgent Interim Relief, Unfair Suspension, Disciplinary Regulations, Balance of Convenience
Labour Law Civil Procedure Urgent Interim Relief Unfair Suspension Disciplinary Regulations Balance of Convenience

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 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Motitswe Benjamin P Bennito

Applicant

City of Tshwane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application and Counter Application on Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to urgent interim relief to uplift his suspension pending CCMA proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's counter-application to declare the employment contract lapsed should be heard on an urgent basis.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was subject to the Disciplinary Regulations for Senior Managers under the Municipal Systems Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to have his suspension uplifted in accordance with the disciplinary regulations, as there was serious doubt whether those regulations applied to him. He did not make representations to avoid his suspension when given the opportunity, thereby abandoning an available alternative remedy. The balance of convenience favoured the respondent, as the risk of a volatile situation at work outweighed the prejudice to the applicant of being suspended. The respondent's counter-application was struck off for lack of urgency, as it was brought without proper notice and expedience alone does not justify urgency.

Court Disposition

The applicant's urgent application to uplift his suspension was dismissed. The respondent's counter-application was struck off the roll for lack of urgency.

Orders

  • The application to uplift the applicant's suspension pending CCMA proceedings is dismissed.
  • The respondent's counter-application to declare the employment contract lapsed is struck off the roll for lack of urgency.