Tulwana and Another v City of Johannesburg (JS871/11) [2015] ZALCJHB 245 (7 August 2015)

Tulwana and Another v City of Johannesburg (JS871/11) [2015] ZALCJHB 245 (7 August 2015)

The court found that the applicants had failed to demonstrate that their dismissal was for an impermissible reason, specifically that it was not proven to be a result of making a protected disclosure. The employment relationship ended due to the effluxion of the fixed term contracts. However, upon consideration of the grounds for appeal and the submissions made, the court was persuaded that there are realistic prospects that the Labour Appeal Court could reach a different decision. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted.

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 245
Parties
Applicant: Alan Tulwana; Applicant: Robert Wiebosch; Respondent: City of Johannesburg
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 August 2015
Case Number
JS871/11
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Claim at Trial
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the Labour Appeal Court with no order as to costs.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Protected Disclosure, Fixed Term Contracts, Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Expectation of Renewal
Labour Law Automatically Unfair Dismissal Protected Disclosure Fixed Term Contracts Leave to Appeal Reasonable Expectation of Renewal

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Tulwana

Applicant

Robert Wiebosch

Applicant

City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Claim at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' dismissal was automatically unfair due to making a protected disclosure.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants had a reasonable expectation that their fixed term contracts would be renewed.
  3. 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects that the Labour Appeal Court could reach a different decision.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had failed to demonstrate that their dismissal was for an impermissible reason, specifically that it was not proven to be a result of making a protected disclosure. The employment relationship ended due to the effluxion of the fixed term contracts. However, upon consideration of the grounds for appeal and the submissions made, the court was persuaded that there are realistic prospects that the Labour Appeal Court could reach a different decision. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Labour Appeal Court with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicants are granted leave to appeal to the Labour Appeal Court.
  • No order as to costs.