S v Neotel (Pty) Ltd (EQ2/2015) [2018] ZAEQC 1; 2019 (1) SA 622 (GJ) (31 July 2018)

S v Neotel (Pty) Ltd (EQ2/2015) [2018] ZAEQC 1; 2019 (1) SA 622 (GJ) (31 July 2018)

The Equality Court found that the respondent's special plea as to jurisdiction failed because the complaint did not arise from an employment policy or practice as contemplated by the Employment Equity Act. The court held that section 5(3) of the Equality Act only excludes its jurisdiction where the conduct complained of falls within the scope of the Employment Equity Act, specifically where unfair discrimination arises from an employment policy or practice. In this case, the applicant's allegations concerned broader corporate conduct, including denial of access to justice and protection, which extended beyond the workplace and employment relationship. The court further held that the...

Citation
[2018] ZAEQC 1
Parties
Applicant: S; Respondent: Neotel (Pty) Ltd
Court
Equality Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 July 2018
Case Number
EQ2/2015
Procedural Posture
Special Plea / Jurisdictional Challenge on Special Plea; Preliminary Legal Question
Outcome
Special plea as to jurisdiction dismissed, with amendments required to certain prayers; costs awarded to the applicant.
Judges
Spilg
Legal Topics
Equality Court Jurisdiction, Employment Equity Act Interpretation, Unfair Discrimination, Gender Based Violence, Access to Justice, Remedial Powers
Constitutional Law Labour Law Civil Procedure Equality Court Jurisdiction Employment Equity Act Interpretation Unfair Discrimination Gender Based Violence Access to Justice +1 more

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S

Applicant

Neotel (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Plea / Jurisdictional Challenge on Special Plea; Preliminary Legal Question

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Equality Court has jurisdiction over the applicant's complaint in light of section 5(3) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000.
  2. 2 Whether the relief sought impermissibly usurps the powers of the CCMA or Labour Court.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct complained of arises from an employment policy or practice as contemplated by the Employment Equity Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Equality Court found that the respondent's special plea as to jurisdiction failed because the complaint did not arise from an employment policy or practice as contemplated by the Employment Equity Act. The court held that section 5(3) of the Equality Act only excludes its jurisdiction where the conduct complained of falls within the scope of the Employment Equity Act, specifically where unfair discrimination arises from an employment policy or practice. In this case, the applicant's allegations concerned broader corporate conduct, including denial of access to justice and protection, which extended beyond the workplace and employment relationship. The court further held that the...

Court Disposition

Special plea as to jurisdiction dismissed, with amendments required to certain prayers; costs awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • The first special plea as to jurisdiction is dismissed except that paragraphs 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 of the prayers must be amended to remove any reference to this court directing the Labour Court to act in a particular way or directing that an application for rescission of the CCMA order be filed. The applicant is...
  • The respondent is to pay the applicant's costs on the opposed scale, including the costs of two counsel.