Sedibeng District Municipality and Another v Shongwe (J712/15) [2015] ZALCJHB 425 (11 December 2015)

Sedibeng District Municipality and Another v Shongwe (J712/15) [2015] ZALCJHB 425 (11 December 2015)

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any error in the original judgment. The deductions from the respondent's salary were made without written consent and, in some instances, exceeded the statutory limit of 25%, thus violating section 34 of the BCEA. The oral agreement relied upon by the applicants did not satisfy the statutory requirement for written consent. The order was not contradictory, as it clearly distinguished between unlawful deductions (which must be reimbursed) and the right to make lawful deductions in future. The applicants did not establish any prospects of success on appeal, and costs were awarded against them.

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 425
Parties
Applicant: Sedibeng District Municipality; Applicant: Yunus Chamda; Respondent: Nontombi Innocentia Shongwe
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 December 2015
Case Number
J712/15
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Unlawful Salary Deductions
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Lallie
Legal Topics
Unlawful Salary Deductions, Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Leave to Appeal, Written Consent Requirement
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unlawful Salary Deductions Basic Conditions of Employment Act Leave to Appeal Written Consent Requirement

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sedibeng District Municipality

Applicant

Yunus Chamda

Applicant

Nontombi Innocentia Shongwe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Unlawful Salary Deductions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have prospects of success on appeal regarding the finding that salary deductions were unlawful.
  2. 2 Whether oral agreements regarding deductions satisfy the requirements of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.
  3. 3 Whether the original order was contradictory in permitting lawful deductions while ordering reimbursement of unlawful deductions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any error in the original judgment. The deductions from the respondent's salary were made without written consent and, in some instances, exceeded the statutory limit of 25%, thus violating section 34 of the BCEA. The oral agreement relied upon by the applicants did not satisfy the statutory requirement for written consent. The order was not contradictory, as it clearly distinguished between unlawful deductions (which must be reimbursed) and the right to make lawful deductions in future. The applicants did not establish any prospects of success on appeal, and costs were awarded against them.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.