Shikwane and Another v Bojanala Platinum District Municipality and Others (J 774/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 191 (29 August 2020)

Shikwane and Another v Bojanala Platinum District Municipality and Others (J 774/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 191 (29 August 2020)

The Court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency, as the disciplinary process and relevant Council resolutions dated back to October 2019, and the applicants delayed in challenging these processes. The urgency claimed was self-created, and the applicants had alternative remedies available, including proceedings before the CCMA and internal appeal mechanisms. The Court held that substantial compliance with Regulation 5 was achieved, as the Council adopted the investigation report and proceeded with disciplinary action. There were no exceptional circumstances justifying intervention in incomplete disciplinary proceedings, and the applicants' review application was defective...

Citation
[2020] ZALCJHB 191
Parties
Applicant: Pogiso Shikwane; Applicant: Olga Ndlovu; Respondent: Bojanala Platinum District Municipality; Respondent: Bojanala Platinum District Municipal Council; Respondent: Cllr Emah Tanke (Speaker of Municipal Council); Respondent: Cllr Moliswa Fetsang (Executive Mayor); Respondent: Nexia SAB & T Forensic Investigation Company; Respondent: Mr Hope Chaane N.O (Chairperson of the Disciplinary Enquiry)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 August 2020
Case Number
J 774/20
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Review Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale, payable jointly and severally by the applicants.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Disciplinary Proceedings, Municipal Regulations, Unfair Labour Practice, Review Application
Labour Law Civil Procedure Urgent Interdict Disciplinary Proceedings Municipal Regulations Unfair Labour Practice Review Application

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pogiso Shikwane

Applicant

Olga Ndlovu

Applicant

Bojanala Platinum District Municipality

Respondent

Bojanala Platinum District Municipal Council

Respondent

Cllr Emah Tanke (Speaker of Municipal Council)

Respondent

Cllr Moliswa Fetsang (Executive Mayor)

Respondent

Nexia SAB & T Forensic Investigation Company

Respondent

Mr Hope Chaane N.O (Chairperson of the Disciplinary Enquiry)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established urgency justifying the intervention of the Labour Court.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have demonstrated exceptional circumstances for the Court to intervene in incomplete internal disciplinary proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the disciplinary process against the applicants was unlawful due to alleged non-compliance with municipal regulations.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicants failed to establish urgency, as the disciplinary process and relevant Council resolutions dated back to October 2019, and the applicants delayed in challenging these processes. The urgency claimed was self-created, and the applicants had alternative remedies available, including proceedings before the CCMA and internal appeal mechanisms. The Court held that substantial compliance with Regulation 5 was achieved, as the Council adopted the investigation report and proceeded with disciplinary action. There were no exceptional circumstances justifying intervention in incomplete disciplinary proceedings, and the applicants' review application was defective...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale, payable jointly and severally by the applicants.

Orders

  • The urgent application by the first and second applicants is dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.
  • Such costs shall be payable by the first and second applicants, jointly and severally, the one paying, the other to be absolved.