Rasenyalo v Moqhaka Local Municipality (JS424/14) [2019] ZALCJHB 20 (5 January 2019)

Rasenyalo v Moqhaka Local Municipality (JS424/14) [2019] ZALCJHB 20 (5 January 2019)

The court found, on the totality of evidence including video footage and credible witness testimony, that the applicant participated in the unprotected strike despite being on leave. The respondent proved substantive fairness: the strike was violent, protracted, and the applicant failed to comply with clear ultimata. The trust relationship was irretrievably broken, and dismissal was an appropriate sanction. However, the respondent failed to comply with the audi alteram partem rule, as no opportunity was afforded to the applicant to state his case prior to dismissal, and no disciplinary hearing was held. This rendered the dismissal procedurally unfair. Given that the dismissal was only...

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 20
Parties
Applicant: Dikole Moses Rasenyalo; Respondent: Moqhaka Local Municipality
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 January 2019
Case Number
JS424/14
Procedural Posture
Unfair Dismissal Application / Trial and Judgment
Outcome
The applicant's dismissal was substantively fair but procedurally unfair. Compensation is awarded for procedural unfairness.
Judges
Mahosi
Legal Topics
Unprotected Strike, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Compensation, Audi Alteram Partem, Dismissal for Misconduct
Labour Law Unprotected Strike Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Compensation Audi Alteram Partem Dismissal for Misconduct

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dikole Moses Rasenyalo

Applicant

Moqhaka Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Dismissal Application / Trial and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant complied with the two ultimata given by the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant engaged in and participated in the illegal and/or unprotected strike and committed misconduct breaching the court order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the totality of evidence including video footage and credible witness testimony, that the applicant participated in the unprotected strike despite being on leave. The respondent proved substantive fairness: the strike was violent, protracted, and the applicant failed to comply with clear ultimata. The trust relationship was irretrievably broken, and dismissal was an appropriate sanction. However, the respondent failed to comply with the audi alteram partem rule, as no opportunity was afforded to the applicant to state his case prior to dismissal, and no disciplinary hearing was held. This rendered the dismissal procedurally unfair. Given that the dismissal was only...

Court Disposition

The applicant's dismissal was substantively fair but procedurally unfair. Compensation is awarded for procedural unfairness.

Orders

  • The applicant's dismissal was substantively fair but procedurally unfair.
  • The applicant is awarded compensation equivalent to two months' salary calculated at the rate of remuneration on the date of dismissal.