Motjamela v Garden Route District Municipality (Rule 6(3)) (C375/2024) [2025] ZALCCT 124 (27 November 2025)

Case Note

Thabang Motjamela v Garden Route District Municipality
C375/2024
Heard: 24 June 2025
Delivered: 27 November 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable as it addresses the procedural compliance necessary for pursuing claims under the Employment Equity Act in the South African context. The Labour Court's decision underscores the importance of observing procedural rules, particularly during discrimination claims, establishing a precedent for how these cases are to be processed. It also highlights the implications of failing to comply with court rules on issues such as service of documents, which can significantly affect the outcome of a case.

The findings in this judgment are significant because they reinforce the strict adherence to court rules, which are designed to ensure fairness in legal proceedings. This case serves as a reminder to litigants that neglect of these rules could result in a dismissal of their claims, even in instances where the substance of the claim might have merit.

Cases Cited

1. Kylie v Stofberg and Others [2009] 3 B.L.R. 261 (LAC)
2. Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie 2006 (1) SA 524 (CC)

Legislation Cited

1. Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 – Section 6
2. Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 – Section 239

Rules of Court Cited

1. Labour Court Rules – Rule 6(3)
2. Labour Court Rules – Rule 7(1)
3. Labour Court Rules – Rule 9(1)(b)(iv)
4. Labour Court Rules – Rule 9(2)
5. Labour Court Rules – Rule 57(1)

HEADNOTE

Summary

In this case, Thabang Motjamela brought a claim of unfair discrimination against the Garden Route District Municipality under the Employment Equity Act. The Municipality contested the application by filing a Notice of Irregular Proceedings, citing deficiencies in service and documentation. The Labour Court ultimately found that Motjamela had not complied with the necessary rules regarding service and documentation, leading to the dismissal of his application and an order for costs against him.

Key Issues

The central legal issues for determination in this case were whether the applicant had complied with the procedural rules relating to the service of documents and the requirements for initiating a claim under the Employment Equity Act. Additionally, whether the failure to comply with these rules warranted the dismissal of the discrimination claim was a key issue.

Held

The Labour Court upheld the Municipality's argument regarding the irregular proceedings and dismissed Motjamela's application. The court ordered Motjamela to serve the issued Notice of Motion correctly and to file a service affidavit compliant with the Labour Court Rules, along with a costs order against him on a punitive scale.

THE FACTS

Thabang Motjamela, as the applicant, initiated an application for relief under the Employment Equity Act, alleging unfair discrimination by the Garden Route District Municipality. Following his application, he filed for default judgment. However, two days later, the Municipality objected by raising irregularities in the proceedings, including the lack of a case number on the documentation submitted and the improper service protocols followed by Motjamela, notably that the application had not been served on the appropriate Municipality officials.

Motjamela's claim asserted that the Municipality had failed to respond adequately to his discrimination application. The Municipality maintained that they were not correctly served and highlighted that the documents included an unsigned affidavit and did not adhere to established court rules, thus compromising their standing in the matter.

THE ISSUES

The Labour Court focused on whether the applicant complied with the Labour Court Rules regarding the service of documents and proper initiation of his application for unfair discrimination. Specifically, the court had to ascertain if the failure to include a case number on the application and the improper service affected the validity of the application.

The court also considered what implications this non-compliance had on the progression of the case and how it intersected with the principles under the Employment Equity Act concerning unfair discrimination claims.

ANALYSIS

The Labour Court examined the provisions of the Employment Equity Act alongside the Labour Court Rules to determine the requisite compliance for initiating a claim of unfair discrimination. The Court noted that according to Rule 7(1)(c), an initiating document must clearly contain a case number before it is served; this is crucial for ensuring that both parties are aware of the proceedings and can prepare adequately.

The Municipality's claims of irregularities were substantiated by the fact that Motjamela had failed to serve the relevant officials correctly and neglected to file a service affidavit, as mandated by Rule 9(2). The court emphasized that compliance with these procedural rules is not merely formalistic but is integral to the legal process.

Ultimately, the court found that the irregularities raised by the Municipality were serious and warranted the dismissal of Motjamela's application. The failure to comply with court rules undermines the legal process's integrity, and the applicant’s repeated non-compliance, despite being a somewhat experienced litigant, reflected a disregard for these foundational standards.

REMEDY

The Labour Court ordered that Motjamela must serve the correctly issued Notice of Motion, complete with a case number, upon the Municipality within ten days of the order. Additionally, he was mandated to file a service affidavit in accordance with the Labour Court Rules. The court also awarded costs against the applicant, order them on a party-and-party scale, reflecting the serious impact of the non-compliance on the legal proceedings.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

This case underscores several key legal principles within South African labour law. First, it reaffirms that procedural compliance is essential for the validity of legal actions in courts, particularly in sensitive matters such as discrimination.

Second, it highlights that failure to adhere strictly to procedural rules—such as the proper service of documents and the inclusion of a case number—can significantly hinder a claim, regardless of its substantive merit. Lastly, the case serves as a stark reminder that litigants, even those not represented by legal counsel, bear the responsibility to understand and comply with court procedures to ensure their cases can proceed fairly.