Services Sector Education and Training Authority and Others v Minister of Higher Education and Training and Others (J604/11) [2011] ZALCJHB 51 (8 June 2011)

Services Sector Education and Training Authority and Others v Minister of Higher Education and Training and Others (J604/11) [2011] ZALCJHB 51 (8 June 2011)

The court found that the applicants demonstrated a clear need for interim relief to prevent ongoing disruption and uncertainty in the governance of the Services SETA. The Minister's appointments and constitution were previously declared invalid, and allowing those appointees to continue would cause irreparable harm and prejudice to stakeholders, staff, and beneficiaries. The balance of convenience strongly favoured restoring the status quo ante, especially given the lack of opposition and the slim prospects of success for any appeal. The court exercised its discretion to grant leave to execute the main judgment, excluding the orders relating to Dr. Blumenthal, pending the outcome of any...

Citation
[2011] ZALCJHB 51
Parties
Applicant: Services Sector Education and Training Authority; Applicant: Ivor Blumenthal; Applicant: UASA The Union; Applicant: Federation of Unions of South Africa; Applicant: Confederation Associations in the Private Employment Sector ("FEDUSA"); Applicant: Association of Personnel Service Organisations of South Africa ("APSO"); Applicant: Beverly Ann Jack; Applicant: Leon Grobler; Applicant: Clive Edward Wicks; Applicant: Shadrack Motloung; Applicant: Feroza Fakir; Respondent: Minister of Higher Education and Training; Respondent: Sihle Moon; Respondent: Shakeel Ori; Respondent: Nolwandle Mantashe; Respondent: Mzwamadoda Wiseman Dinwa; Respondent: Ashleigh Claire van Greunen; Respondent: Kim Veltman; Respondent: Patrick Makhubela; Respondent: Pam Snyman; Respondent: Adene Pringle; Respondent: Joyce Mhlongo; Respondent: Joyce Dimakatso Seema
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 June 2011
Case Number
J604/11
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Leave to Execute Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application granted in terms of prayer 2 of the Notice of Motion, excluding the order sought in prayer 2.7. Relief is interim pending outcome of any proceedings before the Labour Appeal Court. No order as to costs.
Judges
AC Basson
Legal Topics
Leave to Execute Pending Appeal, Skills Development Act, Constitution of Seta, Ministerial Appointments, Balance of Convenience
Labour Law Administrative Law Leave to Execute Pending Appeal Skills Development Act Constitution of Seta Ministerial Appointments Balance of Convenience

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Services Sector Education and Training Authority

Applicant

Ivor Blumenthal

Applicant

UASA The Union

Applicant

Federation of Unions of South Africa

Applicant

Confederation Associations in the Private Employment Sector ("FEDUSA")

Applicant

Association of Personnel Service Organisations of South Africa ("APSO")

Applicant

Beverly Ann Jack

Applicant

Leon Grobler

Applicant

Clive Edward Wicks

Applicant

Shadrack Motloung

Applicant

Feroza Fakir

Applicant

Minister of Higher Education and Training

Respondent

Sihle Moon

Respondent

Shakeel Ori

Respondent

Nolwandle Mantashe

Respondent

Mzwamadoda Wiseman Dinwa

Respondent

Ashleigh Claire van Greunen

Respondent

Kim Veltman

Respondent

Patrick Makhubela

Respondent

Pam Snyman

Respondent

Adene Pringle

Respondent

Joyce Mhlongo

Respondent

Joyce Dimakatso Seema

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Leave to Execute Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to interim execution of the main judgment pending the outcome of any appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the appointment of the Minister's Council and Dr. Moon should be suspended given the finding of invalidity.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience and potential prejudice justify granting leave to execute.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants demonstrated a clear need for interim relief to prevent ongoing disruption and uncertainty in the governance of the Services SETA. The Minister's appointments and constitution were previously declared invalid, and allowing those appointees to continue would cause irreparable harm and prejudice to stakeholders, staff, and beneficiaries. The balance of convenience strongly favoured restoring the status quo ante, especially given the lack of opposition and the slim prospects of success for any appeal. The court exercised its discretion to grant leave to execute the main judgment, excluding the orders relating to Dr. Blumenthal, pending the outcome of any...

Court Disposition

Application granted in terms of prayer 2 of the Notice of Motion, excluding the order sought in prayer 2.7. Relief is interim pending outcome of any proceedings before the Labour Appeal Court. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is granted in terms of prayer 2 of the Notice of Motion, excluding prayer 2.7.
  • The order is granted on an interim basis pending the outcome of any proceedings before the Labour Appeal Court if respondents successfully petition for leave to appeal.