VIC & DUP/JOHANNESBURG/LKS
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
DATE: 17 March 2000 CASE NO. J1044/00
In the matter between:
NDHLELA, JOE Applicant
and
PREMIER SOCCER CLUB AND ANOTHER Respondents
J U D G M E N T
PILLAY, AJ:
[1] This is an urgent application for disclosure of documents for purposes of a disciplinary enquiry. The
applicant seeks an opportunity to file a reply to the respondent's affidavit. The respondent requests that
the jurisdictional point be dealt with first. I am able to deal with the jurisdictional point on the papers as
they are and the submissions from the bar.
[2] Mr Sihlali for the applicant submitted that the documents requested were relevant and indispensable to a
fair enquiry. Furthermore, from the transcript of the enquiry he submitted that the chairperson appeared
not to know what his powers were. The documents that the applicant seeks may be entirely relevant for
the purposes of a fair hearing. Furthermore, the resolution, if it sets out the powers of the chairperson,
might also be relevant so that it sets out the terms of reference for the enquiry. However, the relevance or
1
1
otherwise of the documents, are matters which must be pertinently placed before the chairperson of the
enquiry for a ruling. If the chairperson has not had an opportunity, it is premature for this court to
intervene. This court has declined to intervene in proceedings where a final decision has not been made.
That is not to say that the court has no jurisdiction to do so. There may be circumstances when, in the
interests of justice, such an intervention may be warranted.
[3] Crucial to the consideration whether the court should intervene is whether the applicant has an alternative
remedy. The labour relations regime is such that the applicant does have remedies which it has not
exhausted before approaching the court. The first is that the chairman of the enquiry must be invited to
make a ruling on the disclosure of documents. If his ruling is wrong, then the applicant can invoke the
second remedy, that is to ask the CCMA, if he is dismissed that is, to hold that his dismissal was unfair for
want of a fair hearing. If the applicant is unhappy with the outcome of the CCMA proceedings he may
approach this court on review.
[4] To approach the court before these steps have been exhausted is premature. The court is generally
reluctant to review rulings in pending proceedings. It is being asked in this matter to intervene when the
proper authority, i.e. the chairperson of the enquiry, has not itself made a ruling. The fact that the applicant
held a very senior position does not affect the legal principle under consideration. If this court were to
grant the order, then it must be prepared to open the floodgates for every applicant to approach the court
for some or other order in pending disciplinary proceedings. Such a result it would be untenable and
inconsistent with the way in which it was conceived that the new labour relations regime would function.
[5] The application is accordingly refused, the applicant to pay the costs.
PILLAY, AJ
LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
2
2
: MR SIHLALI
:
: ADV N A CASSIM SC
: Brian Bleazard Attorneys
: 17 MARCH 2000
3
3