About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Cape Town Labour Court, Cape Town
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZALCCT 17
|
|
Adams v Director General: Department of Higher Education and Training (2025/014300) [2026] ZALCCT 17 (3 February 2026)
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
CAPE TOWN
Not Reportable
Case
No:
2026-014300
In
the matter between:
DR
GAVIN
ADAMS
Applicant
and
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL:
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND
TRAINING
(Dr
Nkosinathi
Sishi)
Respondent
Heard
:
3 February 2026
Delivered
:
3 February 2026
JUDGMENT
JACOBS AJ
Introduction
[1]
This is an
ex parte
application for contempt of court ito Rule
58 of the Rules of this court.
Historical
context
[2]
The important historical facts herein are:
2.1
The Applicant applied for the position of Regional Manager with the
Respondent in 2018.
2.2
The Applicant was not shortlisted or appointed to the position at the
time and he referred
an unfair labour practice dispute to the General
Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council. His referral and his
demand to be
appointed to the post were dismissed by the arbitrator.
2.3
The Applicant subsequently launched review proceedings in this court
and the arbitration
award was set aside. An order made on 30 June
2021 inter alia directed that ‘The Third Respondent is ordered
to shortlist
Dr Gavin Adams should he apply for the re-advertised
post’.
2.4
In 2021 and 2022 the post was again advertised.
2.5
In September 2025 the post was again advertised and the Applicant
applied but was not shortlisted.
2.6
The Applicant now seeks to hold the Respondent in contempt for the
failure to shortlist
him in 2025.
The
contempt application
[3]
In terms of the Notice of Motion the Applicant seeks:
3.1
An order nisi calling upon the Respondent, Dr Nkosinathi Sishi, in
his capacity as Director-General:
Department of Higher Education and
Training, to appear personally before this Honourable Court on a date
to be determined by the
court, to show cause why he should not be
held to be in contempt of court for failing to comply with the Labour
Court order granted
on 30 June 2021 under case number C839/2019,
which order reviewed and set aside the bargaining council award under
case number
GPBC600/2019;
3.2
An order directing the Respondent to remain in attendance at Court on
the return date until
excused by the presiding Judge;
3.3
An order granting the Respondent leave to deliver an explanatory
affidavit, on or before
a date to be determined by the court, setting
out the reasons (if any) why the Respondent should not be held to be
in contempt
of court, provided that the filing of such affidavit
shall not excuse the Respondent from appearing personally in Court on
the
return date unless the Court directs otherwise;
3.4
An order authorising and directing the Sheriff to effect service of
this application (including
the Founding Affidavit and annexures) and
the Court’s order nisi, personally on the Respondent
alternatively on a responsible
and duly authorised official at the
Respondent’s principal place of business, at 123 Francis Baard
Street, Pretoria;
3.5
An order that costs be reserved for determination on the return date;
and
3.6
Further and/or alternative relief.
Evaluation
[4]
The requirements of a contempt of court order are trite. In the
context of the current matter, the order granted on 30
June 2021 is
relied on to satisfy the first requirement – that an order
against an alleged contemnor must have been
granted.
[5]
The second requirement, that the order must have come to the
attention of the Respondents, was addressed by the Applicant
by
referring to email correspondence between him and individuals within
the Department and between members of the Department during
late 2021
to January 2022.
[6]
From the judgement of 30 June 2021, it is also evident that the
Respondent was represented at proceedings before the court
at the
time. There is sufficient evidence to show that the Respondent was
aware of the order.
[7]
In addressing the third requirement, that there must be
non-compliance with the order by the Respondent. The Applicant
presented sufficient evidence to show that the post in question was
indeed advertised in or about September 2025, and that he had
applied
therefor. He was apparently also not shortlisted.
[8]
The Applicant, at par 23 of his founding affidavit, states that the
post was advertised in 2021 and 2022. He however does
not disclose
whether he had applied for the post in 2021 or 2022 and whether he
was shortlisted at the time or not.
[9]
Comparing the 2018 advertisement, quoted at par 7 of the judgement of
30 June 2021, and the 2025 advertisement, it is
apparent that there
are some changed requirements for the post. The Applicant did not
indicate whether or not he satisfied the
changed requirements.
[10]
The order of 30 June 2021 ordered the Respondent to shortlist the
Applicant should he apply for
the re-advertised post
. The
order to shortlist the Applicant will not be enforceable in
perpetuity. From a reading of the judgement and order of 30 June
2021, and for practical reasons, it must be accepted that the order
to shortlist the Applicant would apply to the first occasion
after
the date of the judgement that the particular position was
re-advertised, not on each future occasion.
[11]
The post was re-advertised in 2021 and in 2022. In response to a
question from the court, the Applicant advised that
he had nor
applied for the advertised position in 2021, but that he did apply in
2022 but no appointment was made.
[12]
The Applicant did not seek recourse in the court order of 30 June
2021 at that time. The order of 30 June 2021 cannot
be extend to the
2025 advertisement. It therefore follows that there is
no
order against the Respondents that could apply to the 2025 situation.
[13]
Applicant as lay person may be granted some procedural leniency. The
prayer for an order
nisi
and the unexpected formulation of the
relief sought, may be overlooked and dealt with in terms of the
prayer for further and/or
alternative relief. Leniency to a lay
person can however not dilute the evidentiary burden. The papers
before court does
not show that there was an order that was
applicable to the advertisement in 2025. There can be no contempt.
[14]
In the result, the following order is made:
Order
1.
The application is dismissed
2.
No order of costs is made.
W
Jacobs
Acting
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Appearances:
For the Applicant:
In person
For the Respondent::
No Appearances