Pfuhl v Minister of Justice (384/1992) [1994] ZASCA 121 (20 September 1994)

Pfuhl v Minister of Justice (384/1992) [1994] ZASCA 121 (20 September 1994)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that neither the Public Service Act nor the Staff Code required the appellant's appointment to be on probation. The appellant's initial three-month appointment was valid, and after its expiry, the parties' conduct indicated a tacit relocation of the employment relationship for an indefinite period. The termination of the appellant's employment was subject to procedural fairness, and in light of Administrator, Natal v Sibiya, the appellant was entitled to be heard before a decision to terminate his services was made. The Department's failure to afford him a hearing invalidated the termination decision.

Citation
[1994] ZASCA 121
Parties
Appellant: Johann F Pfuhl; Respondent: Minister of Justice
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 September 1994
Case Number
384/1992
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Appeal From Cape Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel. The respondent's decision to terminate the appellant's services is set aside.
Judges
Van Heerden, Hoexter, Kumleben, F H Grosskopf, Howie
Legal Topics
Audi Alteram Partem, Public Service Act, Termination of Employment, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Labour Law Audi Alteram Partem Public Service Act Termination of Employment Procedural Fairness

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

Johann F Pfuhl

Appellant

Minister of Justice

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Appeal From Cape Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the audi alteram partem principle apply to the termination of a temporary employee in the public service?
  2. 2 Was the appellant's employment governed by the probationary provisions of the Public Service Act and Staff Code?
  3. 3 Was the termination of the appellant's employment invalid due to lack of a hearing?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that neither the Public Service Act nor the Staff Code required the appellant's appointment to be on probation. The appellant's initial three-month appointment was valid, and after its expiry, the parties' conduct indicated a tacit relocation of the employment relationship for an indefinite period. The termination of the appellant's employment was subject to procedural fairness, and in light of Administrator, Natal v Sibiya, the appellant was entitled to be heard before a decision to terminate his services was made. The Department's failure to afford him a hearing invalidated the termination decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel. The respondent's decision to terminate the appellant's services is set aside.

Orders

  • The application is allowed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The respondent's decision to terminate the appellant's services, as conveyed in the letter dated 29 March 1990, is set aside.