Smith and Another v Office of the Chief Justice and Others (J1499/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 45; [2018] 5 BLLR 523 (LC); (2018) 39 ILJ 1357 (LC) (2 February 2018)

Smith and Another v Office of the Chief Justice and Others (J1499/17) [2018] ZALCJHB 45; [2018] 5 BLLR 523 (LC); (2018) 39 ILJ 1357 (LC) (2 February 2018)

The Labour Court found that the applicants failed to establish any substantive right to the declaratory relief sought. Section 186(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act merely defines dismissal and does not confer a right to appointment or renewal. The applicants did not refer their dispute for conciliation, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite for the Labour Court to adjudicate unfair dismissal claims. The Constitutional Court in Steenkamp confirmed that the LRA does not provide a remedy for unlawful dismissal, only for unfair dismissal, and such claims must follow the statutory dispute resolution process. The applicants' reliance on the Public Service Regulations was misplaced, as these...

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 45
Parties
Applicant: Latoya Samantha Smith; Applicant: Christinah Mokgadi Mahlane; Respondent: Office of the Chief Justice; Respondent: Memme Sejosengwe; Respondent: Antoinette Theron; Respondent: Jeanette Ngobeni
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 February 2018
Case Number
J1499/17
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Prinsloo
Legal Topics
Fixed Term Contracts, Reasonable Expectation of Renewal, Unfair Dismissal, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Conciliation Requirement
Labour Law Civil Procedure Fixed Term Contracts Reasonable Expectation of Renewal Unfair Dismissal Jurisdiction of Labour Court Conciliation Requirement

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Latoya Samantha Smith

Applicant

Christinah Mokgadi Mahlane

Applicant

Office of the Chief Justice

Respondent

Memme Sejosengwe

Respondent

Antoinette Theron

Respondent

Jeanette Ngobeni

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants had a reasonable expectation of renewal of their fixed term contracts.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' dismissal was unlawful or unfair under section 186(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief without prior conciliation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court found that the applicants failed to establish any substantive right to the declaratory relief sought. Section 186(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act merely defines dismissal and does not confer a right to appointment or renewal. The applicants did not refer their dispute for conciliation, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite for the Labour Court to adjudicate unfair dismissal claims. The Constitutional Court in Steenkamp confirmed that the LRA does not provide a remedy for unlawful dismissal, only for unfair dismissal, and such claims must follow the statutory dispute resolution process. The applicants' reliance on the Public Service Regulations was misplaced, as these...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.