Seemise and Another v Minister of Police and Another (J2519/16) [2017] ZAGPJHC 5 (10 February 2017)

Seemise and Another v Minister of Police and Another (J2519/16) [2017] ZAGPJHC 5 (10 February 2017)

The court found that the application was not urgent, as the applicants failed to demonstrate circumstances warranting urgent relief and any alleged prejudice was self-created. The applicants had alternative remedies available and could not claim urgency where such remedies exist. The consultative process was deemed sufficient, as the applicants, represented by their attorney, conceded at the meeting of 21 November 2016 that they did not qualify for the alternative post and were not interested in other placements. The only outstanding issue was the quantum of severance, which is regulated by statute and not open to negotiation. The relief sought was illogical and misconceived, as the...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 5
Parties
Applicant: Onnicah Seingwaeng Seemise; Applicant: Vuyisile Pericles Ngesi; Respondent: Minister of Police; Respondent: Acting National Commissioner: South African Police Service
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 February 2017
Case Number
J2519/16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Declaratory and Interim Relief Following Discharge From Service
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Section 35 Saps Act, Section 189 Lra, Urgent Application Requirements, Consultation Process, Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Section 35 Saps Act Section 189 Lra Urgent Application Requirements Consultation Process Unfair Dismissal

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Onnicah Seingwaeng Seemise

Applicant

Vuyisile Pericles Ngesi

Applicant

Minister of Police

Respondent

Acting National Commissioner: South African Police Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Declaratory and Interim Relief Following Discharge From Service

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application should be heard as urgent.
  2. 2 Whether the discharge of the applicants from the South African Police Service was lawful under section 35 of the SAPS Act.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents complied with the consultation requirements under section 189 of the Labour Relations Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application was not urgent, as the applicants failed to demonstrate circumstances warranting urgent relief and any alleged prejudice was self-created. The applicants had alternative remedies available and could not claim urgency where such remedies exist. The consultative process was deemed sufficient, as the applicants, represented by their attorney, conceded at the meeting of 21 November 2016 that they did not qualify for the alternative post and were not interested in other placements. The only outstanding issue was the quantum of severance, which is regulated by statute and not open to negotiation. The relief sought was illogical and misconceived, as the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicants’ application is dismissed with costs.