Mothulwe v Labour Court, Johannesburg and Others (CCT 13/24) [2025] ZACC 10 (8 May 2025)

Case Note

Mothulwe v Labour Court, Johannesburg and Others [2025] ZACC 10
Decided on: 8 May 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its implications for access to justice and the interpretation of section 34 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to have disputes resolved by a court or tribunal. The judgment addresses the procedural fairness of the Labour Court's handling of a cross-review application, highlighting the importance of ensuring that all aspects of a case are adjudicated properly. The decision underscores the necessity for courts to consider all relevant applications to uphold the integrity of judicial processes.

Cases Cited

The judgment references several key cases, including: - Mahlangu v Minister of Police [2019] ZACC 24 - Mafika v Minister of Home Affairs [2020] ZACC 12

Legislation Cited

The following legislation is cited in the judgment: - Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 - Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (specifically section 34)

Rules of Court Cited

No specific rules of court are cited in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The case involves an application for rescission concerning a previous refusal of leave to appeal by the Constitutional Court. The applicant, Mr. Paballo Mothulwe, contended that the Labour Court failed to adjudicate his cross-review application challenging a finding of guilt related to corruption. The Constitutional Court ultimately rescinded its earlier orders and granted leave to appeal, emphasizing the need for the Labour Court to address all aspects of the case, including the cross-review.

Key Issues

The key legal issues addressed in this case include: - The procedural fairness of the Labour Court's decision-making process. - The implications of res judicata on the adjudication of cross-reviews. - The interpretation of section 34 of the Constitution regarding access to courts.

Held

The Constitutional Court held that the Labour Court erred in not considering Mr. Mothulwe's cross-review application. The Court rescinded its previous orders and granted leave to appeal, directing that the cross-review be determined by another judge in the Labour Court.

THE FACTS

Mr. Paballo Mothulwe, previously employed by the Department of Public Works, Roads and Transport, Mpumalanga, was charged with corruption following an incident involving soliciting a bribe. After disciplinary proceedings, he was found guilty and dismissed. He and a colleague referred their dispute to the General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council, which led to arbitration. The arbitrator found the dismissal procedurally fair but substantively unfair, ordering reinstatement with a final warning. The Department subsequently sought to review this award in the Labour Court, where Mr. Mothulwe filed a cross-review challenging the finding of guilt. The Labour Court, however, did not address the cross-review, leading to Mr. Mothulwe's application for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court.

THE ISSUES

The legal questions the court had to decide included whether the Labour Court's failure to consider the cross-review constituted a procedural irregularity and whether this warranted rescission of the previous orders made by the Constitutional Court. Additionally, the court needed to determine the implications of the Labour Court's decision on Mr. Mothulwe's right to access justice.

ANALYSIS

The court's reasoning centered on the principle of procedural fairness and the necessity for all relevant applications to be adjudicated. The court noted that the Labour Court's decision to ignore the cross-review deprived Mr. Mothulwe of a fair hearing regarding the finding of guilt. The court emphasized that the right to access courts, as enshrined in the Constitution, must be upheld, and that all aspects of a case must be considered to ensure justice is served.

REMEDY

The court ordered the rescission of its previous orders and granted leave to appeal. It directed that the Labour Court reconsider Mr. Mothulwe's cross-review application and the associated condonation application for late filing. The court stipulated that if the Labour Court grants condonation and upholds the cross-review, the previous order regarding sanction would fall away.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The key legal principles established in this case include: - The necessity for courts to adjudicate all relevant applications to ensure procedural fairness. - The importance of access to justice as a fundamental right under the Constitution. - The implications of res judicata in the context of cross-reviews and appeals, emphasizing that all aspects of a case must be addressed to avoid unjust outcomes.