• Law Reports
  • Motjamela v Garden Route District Municipality (C08/2025) [2025] …

Motjamela v Garden Route District Municipality (C08/2025) [2025] ZALCCT 123 (27 November 2025)

40 Reportability
Labour Law
View PDF SAFLII Source
Share WhatsApp LinkedIn X Email

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Irregular proceedings — Application to set aside statement of claim for improper service — Applicant failed to serve claim on Municipal Manager as required by rule 9(1)(b)(iv) — Municipality's application for irregular proceedings unopposed — Condonation for late filing of application granted — Court upheld Municipality's application and directed Applicant to properly serve statement of claim within specified time.

Comprehensive Summary

Case Note


Thabang Motjamela v Garden Route District Municipality

Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town

Case No: C0B /2025

Heard: 24 June 2025

Delivered: 27 November 2025


Reportability


This case is deemed not reportable but holds significance in the context of procedural enforcement in Labour Court proceedings. It highlights the rigorous adherence required for the service of legal documents, particularly when dealing with claims against municipalities. The ruling serves as guidance on the application of Rule 57 concerning improper steps taken during legal proceedings and emphasizes the importance of proper service in legal matters.


Cases Cited



  • Van der Merwe v. Duvha Power Station (Pty) Ltd [2002] 1 BLLR 56 (LAC)

  • Barkhuizen v. Napier 2007 (5) SA 323 (CC)


Legislation Cited



  • Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995

  • Regulations for the Conduct of Proceedings of the Labour Court


Rules of Court Cited



  • Rule 57 of the Rules Regulating the Conduct of Proceedings of the Labour Court

  • Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) of the Rules Regulating the Conduct of Proceedings of the Labour Court


HEADNOTE


Summary


The applicant, Thabang Motjamela, sought to contest a ruling by the Garden Route District Municipality regarding the proper service of a statement of claim. The core issue revolved around whether Motjamela had sufficiently complied with Rule 9 regarding service to the municipality. The court found that the claim had not been properly served and upheld the Municipality’s application to set aside Motjamela’s claim.


Key Issues


The legal issues addressed in this case included:



  1. Whether Motjamela properly served his statement of claim as required by Rule 9(1)(b)(iv).

  2. The proceedings' compliance with Rule 57 concerning irregular steps in legal claims.

  3. The appropriateness of a condonation application for late filings by the Municipality.


Held


The court held that:



  1. The late application by the Municipality for condonation was granted due to lack of opposition and minimal prejudice to Motjamela.

  2. The Municipality's application to set aside Motjamela’s claim was upheld due to improper service.

  3. Motjamela was ordered to properly serve his statement of claim on the Municipal Manager within ten days. There was no order as to costs given Motjamela's unrepresented status.


THE FACTS


The applicant, Thabang Motjamela, initiated a claim against the Garden Route District Municipality, which he attempted to serve by email on 16 January 2025. Follow-up communication was made with the Municipal HR Manager, but the Municipality claimed that the service was deficient as it was not delivered to the Municipal Manager, as stipulated by law. The Municipality subsequently filed an application citing irregular proceedings due to the failure of service.


Motjamela acknowledged difficulty with the service despite making attempts to reach the relevant officials. The Municipality brought forth an irregular step application under Rule 57, arguing that Motjamela's methods of service were not compliant with the required legal standards.


Before the hearing, it was noted that the Municipality's late filing for the application was unopposed and attributed to administrative errors due to the complexity and number of cases Motjamela had against them.


THE ISSUES


The primary legal questions addressed by the court included whether Motjamela had effectively served his statement of claim to the correct municipal authority as outlined in Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) and whether the Municipality's application for condonation of late filing was justified. Furthermore, the court needed to determine the implications of the alleged irregularities on the prosecution of Motjamela's claim.


ANALYSIS


In its analysis, the court focused on the procedural rules that govern the conduct of parties in Labour Court processes. Rule 9(1)(b)(iv) specifies the mechanisms by which documents must be served on municipal entities, emphasizing the requirement for direct service to the Municipal Manager. The court noted that Motjamela’s attempts at service were insufficient and did not meet the established legal requirement.


On the issue of condonation for the late filing of the Municipality's application under Rule 57, the court recognized the lack of opposition from Motjamela as a strong reason to grant the application. The court highlighted that administrative errors by the Municipality's legal representatives could provide valid grounds for condonation provided they did not prejudice the applicant's position.


The court concluded by acknowledging the importance of adherence to procedural rules, both for ensuring fair trials and maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. Thus, it deemed that Motjamela must comply with proper service protocols to advance his claims effectively.


REMEDY


The court granted the following remedies:



  1. The late filing of the respondent’s application for condonation was condoned.

  2. The application to set aside Motjamela’s statement of claim was upheld.

  3. Motjamela was ordered to serve his statement of claim to the Municipal Manager within ten days.

  4. No order as to costs was made, acknowledging Motjamela's self-represented status.


LEGAL PRINCIPLES


This case underscores key legal principles relevant to procedural law within the Labour Court:



  1. The necessity for strict compliance with procedural rules regarding the service of legal documents, particularly in municipal contexts.

  2. The discretion of the court to grant condonation in instances of non-compliance with procedural timelines, particularly where no significant prejudice is inflicted on the other party.

  3. The court's responsibility to maintain procedural integrity while balancing the rights of self-represented litigants to ensure equitable access to legal remedies.

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN
Not reportable
Case No: C0B /2025
In the matter between:
THABANG MOT JAME LA Applicant
and
GARDEN ROUTE DISTRICT MUNICIAPALITY Respondent
Heard: 24 June 2025
Delivered: 27 November 2025
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' legal ·' •
representatives by email, publication on the Labour Court website and release to SAFLII.
The date and time for handing down judgment is deemed to be 1 0h00 on 27 November
2025.
JUDGMENT
MELAPl,AJ

2
Nature of the application
[1) This is an application in terms of rule 57(1) of the Rules Regulating the Conduct of
Proceedings of the Labour Court (the Court rules). The Respondent, Garden Route
District Municipality (Municipality) (GROM) seeks to set aside the Applicant,
Thabang Motjamela's (Motjamela) claim as he failed to serve the statement of
claim to the Municipality in terms of rule 9(1 )(b)(iv) and 9(2)(b).
[2] Apart from the rule 57(1) application, there is also an application to condone the
late filling of the application in terms of rule 57, which was filed 60 days late.
The condonation application
[3] The Mun icipality brought a condonation application for the late filing of the notice
in terms of rule 57, which was filed on 20 May 2025, over a period of more than
two months. The condonation was not properly opposed.
[4] The explanation for the late filing of the rule 57 application was due to
administrative errors on the part of the attorney dealing with the matter, which
arose due to the enormous cases Motjamela brought against the Municipality.
[5] Since the rule 57 application is unopposed, with no prejudice to Motjamela and
taking into consideration the Municipality's prospects of success; I see no reason
to refuse condonation.
Factual background
[6] On 16 January 2025, the applicant served the respondent a statement of claim by
email. On 21 January 2025, he followed up with the Human Resources Manager
and left a message . On 23 January 2025, the respondent attorney advise applicant
that the statement of claim is not properly served in terms of rule 9(1 )(b)(iv) and
will file irregular proceedings in due course.
[7] On 30 January 2025 the respondent attorney serves notice of irregular
proceedings and filed same at court on 3 February 2025.

3
[8] On 10 February 2025 the applicant files a request for a subpoena, for which the
Court issued directives on 26 May 2025.
Legal Framework
[9] This is an irregular step application (rule 57) in respect of service of documents to
the Municipality in terms of rule 9(1 )(b)(iv).
[1 O] Rule 57 provides the procedure for the application and the possible outcome the
court may consider at the hearing of the matter. Rule 57 reads as follows:
'( 1 ) A party to a cause in which an irregular step has been taken by any other
party may apply to court to set it aside
(2) An application in terms of subrule (1) must be brought on notice to all
parties specifying particulars of the irregularity or impropriety alleged and • ~
may be made only if:
(a) The applicant has not itself taken a further step in the cause with knowledge
of the irregularity,
(b) The applicant has, within 10 days of becoming aware of the step, by written
notice afforded to the other party an opportunity of removing the cause of
comp laint within 10 days,
(c) The application is delivered within 15 days after the expiry of the second
period mentioned in paragraph (b) above.
(3) if at the hearing of the application the court is of the opinion that the
proceeding constitutes an irregular or improper step, it may set it aside in
whole or in part, either as against all the parties or against some of them,
and grant leave to emend within a specific period or make any order it
deems appropriate.
. •.

4
(4) until a party has complied with any order of court made against that party
in terms of this rule, the party may not take any further step in the cause,
save to apply for an extension of time within which to comply with the order.'
[11) Rule 9(1 )(b)(iv) provides that:
Analysis
'(iv) if the party is a municipality, by serving a copy on the municipal manager,
or any person acting on behalf of that person.'
[12) The Municipality brought an application for irregular proceedings for non service
of the statement of claim. Motjamela was advised of non-service according to rule
9(1 )(b) (iv). Instead of complying with rule 9(1 )(b)(iv), Motjamela served and filed
a request for a subpoena. The court issued directives in respect of the subpoena,
wh ich, at the time of the hearing, Motjamela failed to comply w ith. In any event,
they are not related to the application before this court.
[13] The Municipality in their Application prayed for this Court to uphold the irregular
step filed in terms of Rule 57, to set aside the Plaintiff's statement of case in its
entirety, and in respect of costs, that punitive costs be ordered, including the costs
of counsel.
[14) Rule 57(3) states that if at the hearing of the application the court is of the opinion
that the proceeding constitutes an irregular step, it may set it aside in whole or in
part, either as against all the parties or against some of them, and grant leave to
amend within a specified period or make any order it deems appropriate.
[15] It is argued by the Municipality that Motjamela served the statement of claim by
ema il to a number of officials within the Municipality but not to the Municipal
Manager.

5
(16) Motjamela on the other side argues that he tried to serve the statement of claim
by email, and when he followed up in person, he was unable to locate the Human
Resource Manager, but he left messages.
[17) It is clear the statement of case was not served on the Municipality Manager.
Costs
[18] This brings us to the issue of costs. The Municipality prays for punitive costs.
Motjamela is unrepresented and is a lay person. As much as he has brought a
number of cases before this court, he is still unrepresented.
[19] In the premise the following order is made :
1. The late filling of the Respondent's application in terms of rule 57 of the
Rules for the Conduct of Proceedings in the Labour Court is hereby
condoned.
2. The application in terms of rule 57 is upheld.
3. The applicant is directed to comply with rule 9(2)(b )(iv), by serving his
statement of claim on the Municipal Manager and or Acting M unicipal
Manager within 10 days of this judgment.
4. There is no order as to costs.
P. Melapi
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa

Appearances:
For the Applicant
For the Respondent
Instructed by
Mr. T Motjamela (Self-representing)
Advocate N Ristic
Brand & van Der Berg Attorneys
6

Back to Law Reports