Karoo Hoogland Municipality v Nothnagel (CA07-14) [2015] ZALAC 57; (2015) 36 ILJ 2021 ; [2015] JOL 36767 (LAC) (15 April 2015) per Sutherland JA (Davis and Ndlovu JJA concurring)
The LAC allowed the appeal against the judgment in the labour court (Steenkamp J). The two employees were no longer employed but it was decided to correct misconceptions in the labour court judgment. The labour court should not have found that decisions made by a municipal manager, whose appointment was declared void, are automatically to be set aside.
LAC summary:
Mootness – court having discretion to deal with a matter which has become moot or academic if there exist circumstances of public policy related to the impact or likely impact of the judgment a quo that render it prudent that a judgment be given.
Court a quo misconstruing facts that led to the decision to institute a disciplinary enquiry into conduct of employees – evidence proving that municipal council took decision to institute an enquiry and that municipal manager mandated to carry out municipal’s council’s decision – municipal manager’s role or influence not affecting the status of the decision nor its source –– Authority vested in the municipal manager not invoked in the decision – the finding of the High Court that the municipal manager was invalidly appointed not affecting the decision of the council – interpretation of the Oudekraal doctrine restated – invalid action remaining enforceable unless and until set aside – Labour Court erred in finding that decisions made by a municipal manager whose appointment is declared void are automatically to be set aside – appropriate to clarify the principle of law despite mootness- danger of dicta in labour judgment being cited selectively and causing confusion in future disputes before arbitators
Employees opposing the correction of a legal point on appeal unwarranted and justifying costs against them.