Service Sector Education and Training Authority and Others v Minister of Higher Education and Training and Others (J 677/2011) [2011] ZALCJHB 219 (1 June 2011)

Service Sector Education and Training Authority and Others v Minister of Higher Education and Training and Others (J 677/2011) [2011] ZALCJHB 219 (1 June 2011)

The court found that the respondents failed to establish reasonable grounds for leave to appeal. The argument that the judgment was academic due to the Basson J decision was rejected, as the respondents continued to implement the Government Notice. The Minister did not consult the National Skills Authority as required by section 15(4) of the Skills Development Act, and the reasons for not consulting did not relate to delay or detriment to the SETA's capacity. The respondents did not demonstrate any irreparable harm or prejudice that would result from granting leave to execute. The prospects of success on appeal were found to be lacking, and the balance of convenience favoured the...

Citation
[2011] ZALCJHB 219
Parties
Applicant: Services Sector Education and Training Authority; Applicant: Ivor Blumenthal; Applicant: UASA The Union; Applicant: Federation of Unions of South Africa (FEDUSA); Applicant: Confederation of Associations in the Private Employment Sector (CAPES); 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: Acting Director of Higher Education and Training; Respondent: Sihle Moon; Respondent: Shakeel Ori; Respondent: Nolwande 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
1 June 2011
Case Number
J 677/2011
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Ruling on Leave to Appeal and Application to Execute
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused; leave to execute the judgment is granted.
Judges
Gush
Legal Topics
Skills Development Act, Appointment of Administrator, Government Notice Review, Leave to Execute, Consultation Requirements
Administrative Law Labour Law Skills Development Act Appointment of Administrator Government Notice Review Leave to Execute Consultation Requirements

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 2 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 (FEDUSA)

Applicant

Confederation of Associations in the Private Employment Sector (CAPES)

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

Acting Director of Higher Education and Training

Respondent

Sihle Moon

Respondent

Shakeel Ori

Respondent

Nolwande 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

Leave to Appeal / Ruling on Leave to Appeal and Application to Execute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents have established reasonable grounds for leave to appeal against the judgment of 6 May 2011.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to leave to execute the judgment pending appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the Minister complied with section 15(4) of the Skills Development Act regarding consultation before appointing an administrator.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents failed to establish reasonable grounds for leave to appeal. The argument that the judgment was academic due to the Basson J decision was rejected, as the respondents continued to implement the Government Notice. The Minister did not consult the National Skills Authority as required by section 15(4) of the Skills Development Act, and the reasons for not consulting did not relate to delay or detriment to the SETA's capacity. The respondents did not demonstrate any irreparable harm or prejudice that would result from granting leave to execute. The prospects of success on appeal were found to be lacking, and the balance of convenience favoured the...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused; leave to execute the judgment is granted.

Orders

  • The respondents' application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The applicants' application for leave to execute the judgment is granted with costs.