MANGAUNG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY [2026] ZALCCT 66

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 13 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town

Name of Judge(s): De Kock AJ

Summary of Factual Matrix: 

The First Respondent, Mr Ramoshebi, was employed as Manager: Corporate Services since 1 September 2016. On 19 April 2022, an incident occurred wherein he allegedly conducted himself rudely towards the Head of Department of Metro Police. On 3 May 2022, he was served with a Notice of Intent: Suspension, made representations, and Mangaung accepted those representations and took no further action. Sixteen months later, on 4 September 2023, he was served with a fresh Notice of Intent: Precautionary Suspension based on entirely different allegations concerning failure to execute administrative HR duties. He was suspended from 14 September 2023 to 12 December 2023. 

On 9 November 2023, he was charged with misconduct relating exclusively to the April 2022 incident. The presiding officer dismissed the charges on 11 January 2024 due to undue delay and ordered the suspension lifted. Mangaung defied this ruling. 

On 1 February 2024, he was re-charged with the same April 2022 conduct plus new allegations. The arbitrator found an unfair labour practice, ordered immediate upliftment of the suspension, and awarded compensation of R749,394.16 as solatium.

Summary of Findings:

"[24] In Sidumo and Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd and Others, the Constitutional Court held that the reasonableness standard should suffuse section 145 of the LRA and that the threshold test is: '... Is the decision reached by the commissioner one that a reasonable decision maker could not reach?...' In Herholdt v Nedbank Ltd the Court applied this reasonableness consideration as follows: 'In summary, the position regarding the review of CCMA awards is this: A review of a CCMA award is permissible if the defect in the proceedings falls within one of the grounds in s 145(2)(a) of the LRA. For a defect in the conduct of the proceedings to amount to a gross irregularity as contemplated by s 145(2)(a)(ii), the arbitrator must have misconceived the nature of the inquiry or arrived at an unreasonable result. A result will only be unreasonable if it is one that a reasonable arbitrator could not reach on all the material that was before the arbitrator. Material errors of fact, as well as the weight and relevance to be attached to particular facts, are not in and of themselves sufficient for an award to be set aside, but are only of any consequence if their effect is to render the outcome unreasonable.'"

"[29] A preliminary observation is required. Mangaung invites this Court to dissect the Award into four discrete fragments and to evaluate each independently. This is precisely the piecemeal approach that Gold Fields identifies as impermissible. The question is not whether any isolated strand of the Commissioner's reasoning is contestable in the abstract. The question is whether the Award as a whole, read against the totality of the evidence and the documents in the record, is one that no reasonable decision-maker could have reached. This court must bear that overriding principle in mind throughout."

"[31] What is determinative on this ground is that waiver was an agreed dispute issue, expressly recorded in the pre-arbitration conference minutes signed by both parties' representatives. Mangaung placed the question before the Commissioner and invited him to determine it. It cannot now allege that he exceeded his jurisdiction by answering the question put to him. A commissioner does not exceed his powers by determining an issue expressly submitted to him by the parties."

"[39] The fourth ground challenges the void ab initio finding. Mangaung contends that the Government Notice does not specifically require NCR concurrence for precautionary suspensions. This contention cannot withstand scrutiny of the Government Notice itself. Clauses 1.1(h), (q) and (r) read together expressly extend the NCR's oversight mandate to disciplinary functions under section 67(1)(h) of the Municipal Systems Act, which includes the suspension of employees. The suspension of Ramoshebi was a decision made by delegated authority within Mangaung. It required NCR concurrence. The NCR concurrence requirement is not merely procedural in nature; it is jurisdictional, such that any suspension decision taken without it is void from the outset and incapable of subsequent ratification."

"[42] When the Award is viewed holistically, against the totality of the evidence in this record, it is difficult to conceive of a different outcome. Mangaung abandoned disciplinary proceedings against Ramoshebi in 2022, resurrected them sixteen months later under different allegations, issued a suspension notice bearing no connection to the charges ultimately brought, allowed those charges to be dismissed by a binding ruling it then defied, issued further charges and extensions without NCR concurrence, and throughout could offer no coherent justification through its own witness."

As such, the Court held that the Applicant's four grounds of review failed. First, the doctrine of waiver applied broadly and was an agreed issue; any error did not distort the outcome given multiple independent DPCA breaches. Second, the recusal application was properly refused given the late filing and concessions that the commissioner was not biased. Third, the allegation of ignoring evidence was a disguised appeal; the commissioner's finding of no justification for suspension was supported by the employer's own witness. Fourth, the Government Notice expressly required NCR concurrence for disciplinary decisions including suspension; absence of such concurrence rendered the suspension void ab initio. Viewed holistically, the Award was reasonable and within the band of decisions open to a reasonable decision-maker.

Order:

"1. Condonation for the late filing of the Applicant's Heads of Argument is granted. 

 2. The review application is dismissed. 

 3. The Applicant is ordered to comply with the Award within 14 days from the date of receipt of this judgment. The compensation of R749,394.16 attracts interest at the prescribed legal rate from 31 May 2024. 

4. The Applicant is ordered to pay the First Respondent's costs."