Services Sector Education and Training Authority and Others v Minister of Higher Education and Training and Others (J677/2011) [2011] ZALCJHB 36; (2011) 32 ILJ 2251 (LC) (6 May 2011)

Services Sector Education and Training Authority and Others v Minister of Higher Education and Training and Others (J677/2011) [2011] ZALCJHB 36; (2011) 32 ILJ 2251 (LC) (6 May 2011)

The court found that the Minister did not comply with the consultation requirements under section 15 of the Skills Development Act before appointing an administrator for the Services SETA. There was insufficient evidence of financial mismanagement to justify bypassing consultation, and the respondents failed to demonstrate that delay would have been detrimental to the SETA's capacity to perform its functions. The payments alleged to be irregular were adequately explained and not substantiated as improper. The court held that the administration and control of the Services SETA lawfully vests in its elected council, and the freezing or transfer of funds was not justified. The application...

Citation
[2011] ZALCJHB 36
Parties
Applicant: Services Sector Education and Training Authority; Applicant: Ivor Blumenthal; Applicant: UASA THE UNION ("UASA"); 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: Beverley Anne Jack; Applicant: Leon Grobler; Applicant: Clive Edward Wicks; Applicant: Shadrack Motluong; Applicant: Feroza Fakir; Respondent: The Minister of Higher Education and Training; Respondent: Acting Director 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 Mahubela; Respondent: Pam Snyman; Respondent: Adene Pringle; Respondent: Joyce Mhlongo; Respondent: Joyce Dimakatso Seema
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 May 2011
Case Number
J677/2011
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; Minister's directive and related administrative actions set aside.
Judges
Gush
Legal Topics
Skills Development Act, Appointment of Administrator, Procedural Fairness, Ministerial Powers, Urgency, Review of Administrative Action
Administrative Law Labour Law Skills Development Act Appointment of Administrator Procedural Fairness Ministerial Powers Urgency Review of Administrative Action

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 ("UASA")

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

Beverley Anne Jack

Applicant

Leon Grobler

Applicant

Clive Edward Wicks

Applicant

Shadrack Motluong

Applicant

Feroza Fakir

Applicant

The Minister of Higher Education and Training

Respondent

Acting Director 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 Mahubela

Respondent

Pam Snyman

Respondent

Adene Pringle

Respondent

Joyce Mhlongo

Respondent

Joyce Dimakatso Seema

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister of Higher Education and Training lawfully appointed an administrator for the Services SETA without proper consultation as required by the Skills Development Act.
  2. 2 Whether there was financial mismanagement justifying the invocation of section 15(4) of the Skills Development Act.
  3. 3 Whether the transfer or freezing of the Services SETA's funds to the National Skills Fund was lawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Minister did not comply with the consultation requirements under section 15 of the Skills Development Act before appointing an administrator for the Services SETA. There was insufficient evidence of financial mismanagement to justify bypassing consultation, and the respondents failed to demonstrate that delay would have been detrimental to the SETA's capacity to perform its functions. The payments alleged to be irregular were adequately explained and not substantiated as improper. The court held that the administration and control of the Services SETA lawfully vests in its elected council, and the freezing or transfer of funds was not justified. The application...

Court Disposition

Application granted; Minister's directive and related administrative actions set aside.

Orders

  • The order is granted in terms of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the notice of motion.
  • If funds in the first applicant’s bank account have been transferred to the National Skills Fund, prayers 4 and 5 are granted.