• Law Reports
  • Motjamela v Garden Route District Municipality (Rule 6(3)) …

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

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

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Unfair discrimination — Compliance with court rules — Applicant's failure to serve proper documents — Applicant brought an application for unfair discrimination under the Employment Equity Act, which was objected to by the Municipality on grounds of improper service and lack of a case number. The Municipality filed an Irregular Step Application citing deficiencies in the service of the application, including the absence of a case number and service affidavit. The court found that the Applicant failed to comply with the Labour Court Rules, undermining the integrity of the legal process. The Applicant was ordered to properly serve the documents and file a service affidavit, with costs awarded against him.

Comprehensive Summary

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.

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CA
In the matter between:
THABANG MOT JAME LA
and
GARDEN ROUTE DISTRICT MUNICIPA-LrTY
Heard: 24 June 2025
Delivered: 27 November 2025
No ~eportable
o: C375/2024
Applicant
Respondent
This judgm~nt w qs handed aown 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
MELAPI, AJ

2
Nature of the application
[1] Applicant brought a claim under the Employment Equity Act in a form of an
application, which the Respondent objected by Irregular Step Application.
Factual background
[2] Applicant, Thabang Motjamela (Motjamela), brought an applicatio in terms. of
Rule 6(3) of the Labour Court Rules seeking relief for un {lir discrimination.
Immediately after the application, Motjamela filed an apP,licai on for default
judgment.
[3] Two days after filing the default application, the Municipality filed a Notice of
Irregular Proceedings highlighting three issues as follows:
3.1 That the discrimination applicat· n served on them did not have a case
number,
3.2 The discrimination application was not served to the Municipality Manager,
and further,
3.3 That no service affidavit was led.
Legal Framework
[4] Section 6 of the Employment Equity Act deals with the prohibition of unfair
discrimination, and provides that:
No person may unfairly discriminate, directly or indirectly, against an
emp loyee, in any employment policy or practice, on one or more grounds,
including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, family responsibility,
ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion,
HIV status, conscience, belief, political opinion, culture, language, birth or
on any other arbitrary ground.

3
[5] Section 6(4) states that a difference in terms of conditions of employment between
employees of the same employer performing the same or substantially the same
work or work of equal value that is directly or indirectly based on any one or more
of the grounds listed in subsection (1 ), is unfair discrimination.
[6] The Municipality brought Irregular step application (Rule 57) conce
number not inserted in the application, Rule 7(1 )(c) service of ow~ents o the
Municipality, Rule 9(1 )(b)(iv) and service affidavit for the eff.
9(2) of the Labour Court Rules.
[7] Rule 7(1 )(a) states that:
'( 1) Any party initiating any proceedings must have thp document commencing
the proceedings ("initiating document") issued by the registrar in the
following manner.
(c) The case num~r must ~e inserted on the initiating document before it is
served and fil . '
[8] Rule 9(1 )(b)(vi) prov1des that a document that must be served on any party may
be served in ny on tf<le foll• ing:
'(vi) if the party is the State or an organ of state defined in terms of section 239
of the Constitution, or any department of national or provincial government
(collectively referred to as an "organ of State"), by serving a copy both on
a responsible employee in the office of the state attorney situated in the
area or province in which the process is initiated, and the responsible office
of the organ of State against which the claim is brought.'
[9] RUie 9(2) provides that service is proved in court in any of the following ways :
'(a) by an affidavit deposed to by the person who effected service;
(b) if service was affected by email, an affidavit of the person who effected
service. The deponent must provide proof of the correct email address,

Analysis
4
confirm that the whole of the email was sent, and confirm that a named
person telephonically acknowledged receipt of the whole service of the
email.
(c) if the person on whom the document has been served is already O(l record
as a party, by a signed acknowledgement of receipt by the person on whom
the document was served, or
(d) by return of the sheriff.'
[10) Before we deal w ith the discrimination applicatipn, we
Irregular Application brought by the Municipali , which is.
[11] The Municipality argued that the un ir discrimi atiorv pplication brought by
Motjamela on 5 September 2025 was served with ari unsigned affidavit, without a
case number, on a number of em loyees o{ the unicipality, including a Human
Resources Officer, Calvy~ SchepA r. Further that there was no service affidavit
filed by Motjamela to court, col'lfi 'ing service.
[12] Motjamela argued that-when h emailed the application to the Municipality, it did
not have a ca~e nu
[13) It is clear from the court le that Motjamela did make an application for the case
numbe r on 5 September'2025, and a case number was allocated on 6 September
2024.
[14] It is argued by the Municipality that when they received the unfair discrimination
appl'cation, they brought Rule 57 (1) Irregular Proceedings Notice on 14 November
202 which was followed by the Irregular Proceedings Application filed on 4
December 2024. Motjamela, instead of rectifying the issues raised in the Rule 57
(1) application, he brought a subpoena, which, according to the Municipality, had
nothing to do with the Rule 57 (1) Application. The court issued directives which
Motjamela did not comp ly with.

5
[15] Instead offiling opposing papers to the Irregular App licant, Motjamela filed a Notice
of Irregular Proceedings, which alleges that Municipality attorneys were not
properly on record.
[16] I agree w ith the Municipality that, should the founding affidavit have bee
commissioned, served in accordance with Rule 9(1 )(b)(iv), the Muni
have served notice of acting, Ru le 51 (1) and filed answering affipavit..
(17] Motjamela has failed to comply with Rules 7(1 )(c), 9(1 )(iv) a d 9(,2)
upheld. The Respondent is entitled to the relief claimed.
Costs
(18] This brings us to the issue of costs.
[19] The Respondent sought a costs order a ainst the i\pplicant on a punitive scale.
[20] It is disconcerting that the Applicant did not comply.,with the Court Rules, firstly by
serving the Respondent wi 'an ur:i igned affidavit and unissued papers, with no
case number, secondly by s rvihg the r:iapers to random employees of the
Respondent and thirdl by no filing a service affidavit.
[21] To make matters wocse, tl)e Agplicant did not serve papers to the Respondent
after he ecei ed the R I 57(1) Notice. It is not clear how the court must accept
these pape~ witnout a service affidavit.
[22] TJ1e non mpliance with the Court Rules undermines the integrity of the legal
process.
{23] As much as the App licant is not legally represented, he is familiar with the Rules
of tt)is Court. He brought a number of cases before this Court.
(24] In the premises, I make the following order:

6
1. The Applicant is ordered to serve the issued Notice of Motion dated 5
September 2024 on the Respondent within 10 days of this order, in
compliance with Rule 9(1 )(b)(iv) of the Labour Court Rules.
2. Applicant is directed to file a service affidavit with the court fn compliance
w ith Rule 9(2).
3. Applicant is liable for costs on the party and party sc
P . Melapi
Acting ydge of tfle Labour Court of South Africa

7
Appearances:
For the Applicant: Mr T. Motjamela
For the Respondent: Advocate N. Ristic
Instructed by: Brand & van Der Bergh Attorneys
•

Back to Law Reports