Shimange v Bonital Medical Fund and Others (J2987/99) [2000] ZALC 53 (26 June 2000)

Shimange v Bonital Medical Fund and Others (J2987/99) [2000] ZALC 53 (26 June 2000)

The court held that, for the purposes of an exception, the applicant's pleaded facts must be accepted, including the existence of an employment relationship. The court further found that section 158(1)(g) of the Labour Relations Act does not permit the review of a dismissal as it is not an official act or function but rather a private law act governed by the LRA. Accordingly, the exception raised by the respondents was dismissed, and the applicant's review application was allowed to proceed.

Citation
[2000] ZALC 53
Parties
Applicant: Edwin Shimange; Respondent: Bonitas Medical Fund; Respondent: Council of Bonitas Medical Fund; Respondent: Provincial Committee of the Northern Province
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 June 2000
Case Number
J2987/99
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Exception to Review Application
Outcome
Exception dismissed with costs.
Judges
Landman
Legal Topics
Review Under Lra, Employment Relationship, Exception Procedure
Labour Law Review Under Lra Employment Relationship Exception Procedure

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edwin Shimange

Applicant

Bonitas Medical Fund

Respondent

Council of Bonitas Medical Fund

Respondent

Provincial Committee of the Northern Province

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Exception to Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's relationship with the Fund constitutes an employment relationship for purposes of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the applicant is susceptible to review under section 158(1)(g) of the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the exception raised by the respondents should be upheld or dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, for the purposes of an exception, the applicant's pleaded facts must be accepted, including the existence of an employment relationship. The court further found that section 158(1)(g) of the Labour Relations Act does not permit the review of a dismissal as it is not an official act or function but rather a private law act governed by the LRA. Accordingly, the exception raised by the respondents was dismissed, and the applicant's review application was allowed to proceed.

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The respondents' exception is dismissed.
  • The respondents are ordered to pay the costs of the application.