Sesele v Matjhabeng Local Municipality and Others (3426/2005) [2005] ZAFSHC 132 (1 September 2005)

Sesele v Matjhabeng Local Municipality and Others (3426/2005) [2005] ZAFSHC 132 (1 September 2005)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the disciplinary presiding officer. The withholding of salary, though unauthorized, did not amount to irregularity or manifest bias. The applicant's repeated absence and failure to provide credible medical evidence undermined his case. The court emphasized that intervention in ongoing disciplinary proceedings is reserved for exceptional circumstances, which were not present here. The applicant did not prove irreparable harm or special reasons justifying suspension of the proceedings. The application for removal of the prosecutor was also without merit, as no evidence of unfairness or...

Citation
[2005] ZAFSHC 132
Parties
Applicant: RSB Sesele; Respondent: H J Stander; Respondent: Matjhabeng Local Municipality; Respondent: S J Leeuw; Respondent: R N Pitso; Respondent: M J D Sizephe
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 September 2005
Case Number
3426/2005
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Pending Review
Outcome
Application dismissed in toto with costs, including costs of two counsels for respondents.
Judges
Rampai
Legal Topics
Recusal of Presiding Officer, Interim Interdict, Disciplinary Proceedings, Fair Labour Practice, Review of Tribunal Decision
Labour Law Civil Procedure Recusal of Presiding Officer Interim Interdict Disciplinary Proceedings Fair Labour Practice Review of Tribunal Decision

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RSB Sesele

Applicant

H J Stander

Respondent

Matjhabeng Local Municipality

Respondent

S J Leeuw

Respondent

R N Pitso

Respondent

M J D Sizephe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Pending Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim interdict suspending disciplinary proceedings pending a contemplated review application.
  2. 2 Whether the refusal of the presiding officer to recuse himself constitutes reasonable apprehension of bias justifying court intervention.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established all requisites for interim relief, including prima facie right and irreparable harm.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the disciplinary presiding officer. The withholding of salary, though unauthorized, did not amount to irregularity or manifest bias. The applicant's repeated absence and failure to provide credible medical evidence undermined his case. The court emphasized that intervention in ongoing disciplinary proceedings is reserved for exceptional circumstances, which were not present here. The applicant did not prove irreparable harm or special reasons justifying suspension of the proceedings. The application for removal of the prosecutor was also without merit, as no evidence of unfairness or...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed in toto with costs, including costs of two counsels for respondents.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed in toto.
  • The applicant is directed to pay the costs of the application.