Mpanza and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Correctional Services and Others (JS708/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 48; (2017) 38 ILJ 1675 (LC); [2017] 10 BLLR 1062 (LC) (31 January 2017)

Mpanza and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Correctional Services and Others (JS708/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 48; (2017) 38 ILJ 1675 (LC); [2017] 10 BLLR 1062 (LC) (31 January 2017)

The court found that the evidence regarding whether the applicants reported for duty was mutually destructive. On a balance of probabilities, the respondents' version was accepted: the applicants failed to tender their services regularly as required by their employment contracts. The Department was entitled to implement the no-work-no-pay principle and make salary deductions. The Department followed a fair procedure by giving the applicants written notice and an opportunity to respond before deductions were made. The applicants failed to provide proof of their responses. The deductions were lawful and in compliance with Section 34 of the BCEA and PSA. The application for a declaratory...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 48
Parties
Applicant: Daniel Siphiwe Mpanza; Applicant: Jacqueline Matshidiso; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Correctional Services; Respondent: Director-General for the Department of Justice and Correctional Services; Respondent: Acting Chief Litigation Officer for the Department of Justice & Constitutional Development & Correctional Services
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 January 2017
Case Number
JS708/14
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs; applicants held jointly and severally liable for costs.
Judges
Cele
Legal Topics
No Work No Pay, Salary Deductions, Section 34 Bcea, Section 15 Psa, Breach of Employment Contract
Labour Law Civil Procedure No Work No Pay Salary Deductions Section 34 Bcea Section 15 Psa Breach of Employment Contract

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

Daniel Siphiwe Mpanza

Applicant

Jacqueline Matshidiso

Applicant

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Correctional Services

Respondent

Director-General for the Department of Justice and Correctional Services

Respondent

Acting Chief Litigation Officer for the Department of Justice & Constitutional Development & Correctional Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were lawfully seconded or temporarily placed in compliance with Section 15 of the Public Service Act.
  2. 2 Whether the salary deductions made by the Department were in compliance with Section 34 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and Section 34 of the Public Service Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants tendered their services as required under their employment contracts.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence regarding whether the applicants reported for duty was mutually destructive. On a balance of probabilities, the respondents' version was accepted: the applicants failed to tender their services regularly as required by their employment contracts. The Department was entitled to implement the no-work-no-pay principle and make salary deductions. The Department followed a fair procedure by giving the applicants written notice and an opportunity to respond before deductions were made. The applicants failed to provide proof of their responses. The deductions were lawful and in compliance with Section 34 of the BCEA and PSA. The application for a declaratory...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs; applicants held jointly and severally liable for costs.

Orders

  • The application for a declaratory order and an order for repayment of monies deducted is dismissed.
  • The applicants are to pay the costs of this application, jointly and severally.