Ntsimane and Others v Memela (JA25/2020) [2021] ZALAC 27; (2021) 42 ILJ 2400 (LAC); [2021] 12 BLLR 1202 (LAC) (6 September 2021)

Ntsimane and Others v Memela (JA25/2020) [2021] ZALAC 27; (2021) 42 ILJ 2400 (LAC); [2021] 12 BLLR 1202 (LAC) (6 September 2021)

The Labour Appeal Court found that Mr Ntsimane was not proved beyond reasonable doubt to have acted wilfully and mala fide in disobeying the Labour Court order. He acted under a bona fide belief that the appeal suspended the order and only became aware of the true procedural status after the contempt hearing. The attorneys' failure to prosecute the appeal was unacceptable, but since contempt was not established, the rationale for a punitive costs order against them fell away. The appeal was upheld, the contempt conviction and costs orders were set aside, and no costs order was made against any party.

Citation
[2021] ZALAC 27
Parties
Appellant: Moeketsi Ntsimane; Appellant: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality; Appellant: Diale Mogashoa Attorneys; Respondent: Nontobeko Memela
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 September 2021
Case Number
JA25/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Contempt and Costs Orders
Outcome
Appeal upheld; contempt conviction and costs orders set aside.
Judges
Waglay, Coppin, Kubushi
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Personal Costs Orders, Suspension of Employees, Collective Agreement Disciplinary Code
Labour Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Personal Costs Orders Suspension of Employees Collective Agreement Disciplinary Code

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moeketsi Ntsimane

Appellant

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Appellant

Diale Mogashoa Attorneys

Appellant

Nontobeko Memela

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Contempt and Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Ntsimane was correctly convicted of contempt of the Labour Court order.
  2. 2 Whether it was regular and appropriate to order the attorneys to pay costs de bonis propriis.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's continued suspension was lawful under the disciplinary code.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court found that Mr Ntsimane was not proved beyond reasonable doubt to have acted wilfully and mala fide in disobeying the Labour Court order. He acted under a bona fide belief that the appeal suspended the order and only became aware of the true procedural status after the contempt hearing. The attorneys' failure to prosecute the appeal was unacceptable, but since contempt was not established, the rationale for a punitive costs order against them fell away. The appeal was upheld, the contempt conviction and costs orders were set aside, and no costs order was made against any party.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; contempt conviction and costs orders set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal against the orders of the court a quo is upheld.
  • The orders of the court a quo are set aside and substituted with: 'The application (for contempt) is dismissed; There is no costs order.'