Sipho v Gauteng Department of Education and Others (J1632/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 366 (29 November 2019)
The application was dismissed because it failed to meet the procedural requirements for contempt proceedings. The applicant did not properly identify the respondents, as required by law, and did not effect proper service of the application and order. The court emphasized that contempt proceedings, particularly those...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] ZALCJHB 366
- Parties
- Applicant: Motong Johannes Sipho; Respondent: Gauteng Department of Education; Respondent: HOD and the officials employed by the respondent
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- J1632/19
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Application for Contempt of Court Order
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with no order as to costs.
- Judges
- G N Moshoana
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Service of Process, Naming of Parties
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Motong Johannes Sipho
Applicant
Gauteng Department of Education
Respondent
HOD and the officials employed by the respondent
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Contempt of Court Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents can be committed to imprisonment for non-compliance with a court order.
- 2 Whether the application meets the requirements for contempt proceedings, including proper service and naming of responsible parties.
Ratio Decidendi
The application was dismissed because it failed to meet the procedural requirements for contempt proceedings. The applicant did not properly identify the respondents, as required by law, and did not effect proper service of the application and order. The court emphasized that contempt proceedings, particularly those seeking imprisonment, require strict compliance with procedural safeguards to protect the rights of those affected. The respondents had made an offer to comply, which the applicant refused, further undermining the basis for contempt. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with no order as to costs.
Orders
- The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
the labour court of South Africa, JOHANNESBURG.
Not Reportable
case no: J 1632/19
In the matter between:
MOTONG JOHANNES SIPHO Applicant And THE GAUTENG DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION HOD AN THE OFFICIALS EMPLOYED BY THE RESPONDENT First Respondent Second to Further Respondents
Heard: 29 November 2019
Delivered: 29 November 2019
Edited: 21 January 2019
ex tempore judgment
MOSHOANA, J
[1] Before me is an application to commit certain respondents to imprisonment because of their non-compliance with the order of this Court dated 31 July 2019. The applicant, Mr Motong, Johannes Sipho, is appearing in person, and prior to the commencement of the hearing of this matter, I enquired from him whether he would need legal representation, and that was prompted by my reading of the papers that were defective in many respects, however, he indicated that he shall continue with the matter without legal assistance.
[2] I pointed out those difficulties, the first difficulty being that the respondents have not been mentioned, it is only stated as the “Gauteng Department of Education, HOD and the officials employed by the respondent”. That is not sufficient. The Constitutional Court had recently in the Merafong judgment made it very clear that in contempt proceedings parties who are responsible to carry out the court order must be named appropriately because this involved imprisonment, or civil imprisonment, and takes away rights of people.
[3] The second difficulty is that there is no proper service. These documents and/or order was just handed to a clerk, it was not even served through a sheriff. With all those difficulties, Mr Motong insisted that this application be heard. Nonetheless, Mr Ngutshane, appearing for the respondents, indicated that an offer was made to comply with the order, and the applicant is actually refusing.
[4] Clearly one of the requirements as set out in the Faki judgment is that there must be a clear intention, particularly where there is imprisonment for not wanting to complying with the order. Now, this application does not meet those requirements, and for that matter the application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
[5] In the result I make the following order:
Order
1. The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
_______________________
G. N. Moshoana
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa