Mpakane v Tswelopele and Other (2800/2004) [2004] ZAFSHC 145 (21 October 2004)

Mpakane v Tswelopele and Other (2800/2004) [2004] ZAFSHC 145 (21 October 2004)

The court found that the applicant was the author of his own predicament, having failed to secure alternative representation despite ample opportunity and having contributed to repeated postponements. The applicant's insistence on his preferred attorney was not supported by law, and the respondents acted reasonably in seeking to conclude the disciplinary inquiry expeditiously. The disciplinary tribunal, not the applicant, controls the scheduling of hearings, and the applicant's conduct in prolonging the matter was prejudicial to the municipality, which continued to pay his salary without receiving services. The application was therefore dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2004] ZAFSHC 145
Parties
Applicant: Mohanoe Mpakane; Respondent: Tswelopele Municipality; Respondent: Lesane Shadrack Sesele; Respondent: Mmathebe Violet Phatshoane
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 October 2004
Case Number
2800/2004
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief to Postpone Disciplinary Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
H.M. Musi
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Procedure, Right to Legal Representation, Postponement of Hearing, Collective Agreement, Natural Justice
Labour Law Civil Procedure Disciplinary Procedure Right to Legal Representation Postponement of Hearing Collective Agreement Natural Justice

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

Mohanoe Mpakane

Applicant

Tswelopele Municipality

Respondent

Lesane Shadrack Sesele

Respondent

Mmathebe Violet Phatshoane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief to Postpone Disciplinary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was entitled to a postponement of the disciplinary inquiry to secure his preferred legal representative.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents acted unreasonably in refusing to postpone the disciplinary hearing beyond 18 August 2004.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to insist on representation by a specific attorney.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was the author of his own predicament, having failed to secure alternative representation despite ample opportunity and having contributed to repeated postponements. The applicant's insistence on his preferred attorney was not supported by law, and the respondents acted reasonably in seeking to conclude the disciplinary inquiry expeditiously. The disciplinary tribunal, not the applicant, controls the scheduling of hearings, and the applicant's conduct in prolonging the matter was prejudicial to the municipality, which continued to pay his salary without receiving services. The application was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.