Ngwenya v Sishen Iron Company (J 3581/18) [2022] ZALCJHB 173 (27 June 2022)

Ngwenya v Sishen Iron Company (J 3581/18) [2022] ZALCJHB 173 (27 June 2022)

The application was dismissed as a non-starter. The applicant failed to make the necessary averments to sustain a claim for breach of contract under section 77(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. The Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain unfair labour practice claims relating to occupational detriment under the Protected Disclosure Act; such matters fall within the jurisdiction of the CCMA. The applicant's approach was unreasonable and vexatious, especially after being repeatedly advised to withdraw the application. Costs may be awarded on a punitive scale against the applicant's attorney and firm unless cause is shown.

Citation
[2022] ZALCJHB 173
Parties
Applicant: Zanele Ngwenya; Respondent: Sishen Iron Company
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 June 2022
Case Number
J 3581/18
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Opposed Motion Hearing; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs potentially awarded against applicant's attorney and firm unless cause is shown.
Judges
G N Moshoana
Legal Topics
Protected Disclosure Act, Section 77 3 Bcea, Unfair Labour Practice, Breach of Employment Contract, Costs De Bonis Propriis
Labour Law Civil Procedure Protected Disclosure Act Section 77 3 Bcea Unfair Labour Practice Breach of Employment Contract Costs De Bonis Propriis

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zanele Ngwenya

Applicant

Sishen Iron Company

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Opposed Motion Hearing; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established a breach of employment contract under section 77(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain claims of occupational detriment and unfair labour practice under the Protected Disclosure Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation and costs as claimed.

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed as a non-starter. The applicant failed to make the necessary averments to sustain a claim for breach of contract under section 77(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. The Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain unfair labour practice claims relating to occupational detriment under the Protected Disclosure Act; such matters fall within the jurisdiction of the CCMA. The applicant's approach was unreasonable and vexatious, especially after being repeatedly advised to withdraw the application. Costs may be awarded on a punitive scale against the applicant's attorney and firm unless cause is shown.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs potentially awarded against applicant's attorney and firm unless cause is shown.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Attorney Motlatsi Lekhesa must, within 14 days of this order, show cause by affidavit why costs de bonis propriis should not be made against him and/or his firm. If he fails to do so, costs shall be paid on an attorney and own client scale by Lekhesa Attorneys and/or Motlatsi Lekhesa.