National Gambling Board v Manuel (JR1150/15) [2015] ZALCJHB 418 (1 December 2015)

National Gambling Board v Manuel (JR1150/15) [2015] ZALCJHB 418 (1 December 2015)

The court found overwhelming evidence that the respondent's appointment and employment contract were preceded by material irregularities and misrepresentations, including failure to apply for the post, improper shortlisting, and false representation of qualifications and experience. Most allegations were unchallenged or inadequately addressed by the respondent. The Labour Court has jurisdiction to review such matters under the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and the Labour Relations Act. The applicant's Recruitment and Selection Policy also provides for termination in cases of serious irregularities. The respondent's points in limine were without merit. Consequently, both the...

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 418
Parties
Applicant: National Gambling Board; Respondent: S M Manuel
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 December 2015
Case Number
JR1150/15
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; respondent's appointment and employment contract set aside; costs awarded to applicant.
Judges
Boyce
Legal Topics
Review of Employment Decision, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Termination of Employment Contract, Recruitment Policy, Jurisdiction of Labour Court
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Employment Decision Fraudulent Misrepresentation Termination of Employment Contract Recruitment Policy Jurisdiction of Labour Court

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Gambling Board

Applicant

S M Manuel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's appointment as Stakeholder Manager and the subsequent employment contract were preceded by material irregularities and misrepresentations.
  2. 2 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to review and set aside the appointment and employment contract.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs, including costs of two counsel, due to the respondent's opposition.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found overwhelming evidence that the respondent's appointment and employment contract were preceded by material irregularities and misrepresentations, including failure to apply for the post, improper shortlisting, and false representation of qualifications and experience. Most allegations were unchallenged or inadequately addressed by the respondent. The Labour Court has jurisdiction to review such matters under the Basic Conditions of Employment Act and the Labour Relations Act. The applicant's Recruitment and Selection Policy also provides for termination in cases of serious irregularities. The respondent's points in limine were without merit. Consequently, both the...

Court Disposition

Application granted; respondent's appointment and employment contract set aside; costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • The decision by the applicant dated 21 August 2014 to appoint the respondent as Stakeholder Manager is reviewed and set aside.
  • The contract of employment concluded between the applicant and the respondent on 29 January 2015 is set aside.