Motsemme v City of Matlosana (27572.2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 404 (25 May 2016)

Motsemme v City of Matlosana (27572.2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 404 (25 May 2016)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency, as he did not adequately demonstrate irreparable harm or the absence of an alternative remedy. The applicant could approach the court in the ordinary course and claim damages for any alleged unlawful termination of his contract. The court was not persuaded that the matter raised issues of public interest sufficient to justify urgency. Furthermore, the applicant's request for a special costs order against the respondents was made recklessly and without proper basis. The application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency, and a special costs order was granted against the applicant due to the unnecessarily voluminous...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 404
Parties
Applicant: Elie Tsietsi Motsemme; Respondent: City of Matlosana Local Municipality; Respondent: Ramagaga Seth (Administrator: City of Matlosana)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 May 2016
Case Number
27572/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application Struck From the Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; special costs order granted against the applicant.
Judges
AC Sasson
Legal Topics
Unlawful Termination, Urgent Interdict, Alternative Remedy, Costs Order
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unlawful Termination Urgent Interdict Alternative Remedy Costs Order

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elie Tsietsi Motsemme

Applicant

City of Matlosana Local Municipality

Respondent

Ramagaga Seth (Administrator: City of Matlosana)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application Struck From the Roll for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the applicant's employment contract was unlawful and/or invalid and/or unconstitutional.
  2. 2 Whether the matter was sufficiently urgent to warrant hearing on an urgent basis.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant had an alternative remedy available.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency, as he did not adequately demonstrate irreparable harm or the absence of an alternative remedy. The applicant could approach the court in the ordinary course and claim damages for any alleged unlawful termination of his contract. The court was not persuaded that the matter raised issues of public interest sufficient to justify urgency. Furthermore, the applicant's request for a special costs order against the respondents was made recklessly and without proper basis. The application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency, and a special costs order was granted against the applicant due to the unnecessarily voluminous...

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; special costs order granted against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs on an attorney and own client scale.