SAMWU obo Makola v Nkangala District Municipality (J 610/12) [2012] ZALCJHB 151 (27 March 2012)

SAMWU obo Makola v Nkangala District Municipality (J 610/12) [2012] ZALCJHB 151 (27 March 2012)

The court held that the applicant had referred the dispute to the CCMA, where the fairness and lawfulness of the suspension would be determined. The distinction between fairness and lawfulness was not material in the present circumstances, as any unlawful conduct by the respondent in suspending the applicant would be addressed in the arbitration process. The applicant therefore had an adequate alternative remedy and failed to demonstrate the absence of similar protection by ordinary means. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

Citation
[2012] ZALCJHB 151
Parties
Applicant: SAMWU obo Tenane C Makola; Respondent: Nkangala District Municipality
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 March 2012
Case Number
J 610/12
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Order Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practice, Precautionary Suspension, Alternative Remedy, Municipal Employment Regulations
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Labour Practice Precautionary Suspension Alternative Remedy Municipal Employment Regulations

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

SAMWU obo Tenane C Makola

Applicant

Nkangala District Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Order Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's suspension was unlawful and should be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the existence of an alternative remedy at the CCMA precludes relief in this court.
  3. 3 Whether the procedural requirements for suspension under the contract and regulations were met.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant had referred the dispute to the CCMA, where the fairness and lawfulness of the suspension would be determined. The distinction between fairness and lawfulness was not material in the present circumstances, as any unlawful conduct by the respondent in suspending the applicant would be addressed in the arbitration process. The applicant therefore had an adequate alternative remedy and failed to demonstrate the absence of similar protection by ordinary means. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed, with costs.