Sikhela v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another (J248/03) [2002] ZALC 8 (2 February 2002)

40 Reportability

Brief Summary

Labour Law — Urgent application for reinstatement — Applicant seeking immediate reinstatement as Strategic Manager after unilateral transfer to another department — Court finding no clear right established and alternative remedy available through CCMA — Application dismissed with costs.

Sneller Verbatim/HVR
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: J248/03
2002-02-03
In the matter between
P M SOKHELA Applicant
and
THE CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN
1st Respondent
THE ACTING MUNICIPAL MANAGER:
2nd Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
_
J U D G M E N T
_______________________________________________________________
_
REVELAS J:
1. In   this   matter   the   applicant   brought   an   urgent  
application requesting this court for an order that he be  
reinstated   with   immediate   effect   in   his   position   as  
Strategic Manager in the office of the Municipal Manager  
of the first respondent pending the final adjudication of

the other relief sought.
2. The applicant wishes to be reinstated in that office for  
the unexpired term of his five year contract in terms of  
which   he   would   be   employed   until   the   year   2007   at   a  
monthly remuneration of R530   000.00.
3. The   applicant   currently   holds   the   position   to   which   he  
was   and   unilaterally   transferred   by   the   respondents   to  
the   licensing   department   of   the   Metro   Police.     The  
applicant contends that he has a clear right in that the  
contract entered into was breached and repudiated by the  
respondent.     It   was   argued   that   this   would   cause   the  
applicant irreparable harm.
4. I   raised   my   concern   that   the   situation   regarding   the  
payment   could   continue   indefinitely   which   was   also   the  
applicant's argument in favour of the matter being dealt  
with by way of urgency.   However, I have considered the  
facts   of   this   matter,   and   the   applicant   has   an  
alternative   remedy.   He   may   refer   his   dispute   to   the  
Commission   for   Conciliation,   Mediation   and   Arbitration  
(“the CCMA”).
5. I also considered whether or not to grant the interdict  
pending   the   event   of   the   disciplinary   hearing   involving  
the   chief   executive   officer   of   the   Tshwane   Metropolitan  
Municipality, Dr Thoahlane.  
6. On   the   facts   of   this   case   I   am   not   persuaded   that   this

disciplinary   inquiry,   which   also   would   necessarily  
involve an investigation into the applicant's activities,  
will never take place. 
7. It was pointed out to me that Dr Thoahlane earns a salary  
of approximately R900 000.00 a year and that it was not  
in the interests of the first respondent to postpone the  
event   of   the   disciplinary   inquiry   which   relied   on   the  
applicant's position in this matter.
8. However,   the   applicant   has   not   referred   his   dispute   to  
the Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration  
as   one   would   expect   the   first   step   would   be.   The  
applicant   has   not   demonstrated   that   he   does   not   has   an  
alternative remedy.  He is still being remunerated at the  
same salary which he would receive in the position he now  
seeks to be reinstated into.   He has not been suspended  
and   he   has   not   demonstrated   any   monetary   loss   or  
otherwise   from   conducting   different   functions   for   the  
same employer save for breach of contract, which on the  
face   of   it   does   not   constitute   a   clear   right   or   a  
reasonable apprehension of harm.
9. In   the   circumstances   the   application   is   dismissed   with  
costs.
________________
E. Revelas