About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Johannesburg Labour Court, Johannesburg
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZALCJHB 428
|
|
Lamola v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others (J2436/15) [2015] ZALCJHB 428 (11 December 2015)
THE
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
JUDGMENT
Reportable
Case
No: J 2436/15
In
the matter between:
LAMOLA
ISHMAEL SELLO
Applicant
and
CITY
OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
First Respondent
STEVE
NGOBENI: CHIEF OF POLICE, TSHWANE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
Second Respondent
JASON
NGOBENI: HEAD OF ADMINISTRATION, THE CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN
MUNICIPALITY
Third Respondent
Date
heard:
11 December 2015
Judgment
delivered: 11 December
2015
JUDGMENT
NKUTHA-NKONTWANA
AJ
[1]
This
is an urgent application in terms of which the Applicant essentially
seeks, by way of an final interdict, a declaration that
his
suspension is unlawful and setting aside same.
[2]
I was,
however, advised by the counsel for the First Respondent that the
impugned suspension has since been withdrawn as per the
letter date
11 December 2014. Accordingly, the matter has become moot.
[3]
The only
issue that remains for determination is costs. The counsel for the
Applicant submitted that up until the day of the hearing
of the
matter, the suspension had not been withdrawn, in a sense that the
status
quo ante
had not been reinstated. I note that the First Respondent was alerted
by the Applicants’ attorneys of record that its conduct
in
suspending the Applicant was unlawful as early as 20 November 2015.
It was only four days later that the First Respondent replied
and
persisted that the suspension was lawful and hence these proceedings
were launched.
[4]
Instead of
opposing, the First Respondent sought to uplift the suspension with a
tender to pay costs on a party to party scale.
However, the Applicant
did not accept the withdrawal of his suspension since it did not
restore the
status
quo ante
but it sought to transfer him to another department. The First
Respondent only acceded to Applicant’s demand in a letter
dated
11 November 2015, the day of the hearing of the matter.
[5]
Given the
First Respondent’s conduct, it is my view that an order sought
by the Applicant is appropriate. Also, the prevalence
of these kinds
of matters in this court, I am convinced that it is about time the
punitive costs should be awarded in order to
dissuade the employers
within the local government sector from flouting the provisions of
the SALGBC Disciplinary Procedure and
Code Collective Agreement.
[6] For the above
reasons, I make the following order:
1.
The
matter has become moot due to the withdrawal of the Applicant’s
suspension.
2.
The
First Respondent is to pay the costs at the
scale
as between attorney and own client.
_____________________
Nkutha- Nkontwana, AJ
Acting Judge of the
Labour Court of South Africa
APPEARANCES:
For
the Applicant:
Adv Mathabedi
SC with Adv P Jara
For
the Respondents:
Adv T Mkhwanazi