POPCRU obo Maseko v Minister of Correctional Services (J1227/09) [2009] ZALCJHB 70 (30 June 2009)

POPCRU obo Maseko v Minister of Correctional Services (J1227/09) [2009] ZALCJHB 70 (30 June 2009)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient urgency, as the reasons for urgency existed from the date of suspension but the application was only brought seventeen days later without explanation. The applicant did not show that new facts had arisen or that immediate relief was necessary. Furthermore, the applicant failed to address whether an alternative remedy was available. The respondent's answering affidavit was not accepted due to improper service and lack of condonation. The court dismissed the application for lack of urgency and made no order as to costs.

Citation
[2009] ZALCJHB 70
Parties
Applicant: POPCRU obo T. Maseko; Respondent: Minister of Correctional Services
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 June 2009
Case Number
J1227/09
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Review and Set Aside Suspension; Heard as Urgent Motion
Outcome
Application dismissed for lack of urgency.
Judges
Nyathela
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Suspension Pending Investigation, Trade Union Rights, Alternative Remedy, Condonation for Late Filing
Labour Law Civil Procedure Urgent Interdict Suspension Pending Investigation Trade Union Rights Alternative Remedy Condonation for Late Filing

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

POPCRU obo T. Maseko

Applicant

Minister of Correctional Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Review and Set Aside Suspension; Heard as Urgent Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's suspension pending investigation was unlawful and should be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the application was sufficiently urgent to warrant relief.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant had an alternative remedy.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient urgency, as the reasons for urgency existed from the date of suspension but the application was only brought seventeen days later without explanation. The applicant did not show that new facts had arisen or that immediate relief was necessary. Furthermore, the applicant failed to address whether an alternative remedy was available. The respondent's answering affidavit was not accepted due to improper service and lack of condonation. The court dismissed the application for lack of urgency and made no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for lack of urgency.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed for lack of urgency.
  • There is no order as to costs.