Maluleka v Mogalakwena Local Municipality & others [2026] ZALCJHB 360

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 30 July 2026, Labour Court, Johannesburg

Case No: 2026-161831

Name of Judge(s): Phehane J

Summary of Factual Matrix:

Mr Maluleka was the Municipal Manager of the Mogalakwena Local Municipality under a five-year fixed-term contract running to 31 August 2027. On 18 June 2026 he tendered what he called a 'conditional resignation', effective 30 November 2026. The Council noted that resignation on 29 June 2026, but on 1 July 2026 a differently constituted Council resolved to approve it and to place him on compulsory leave until 31 July 2026. An earlier urgent application was struck off the roll for want of urgency on 2 July 2026.

On 8 July 2026 he brought a fresh urgent application to stay the decisions placing him on compulsory leave, interdict his dismissal and the appointment of an acting municipal manager, and be allowed to resume his duties pending a review application. He contended that his resignation was coerced and invalid. The respondents opposed on jurisdiction and urgency.

Summary of Findings:

[13] ‘This Court is a creature of statute and derives its jurisdiction from the provisions of section 157(1) and (2) of the Labour Relations Act[14](LRA). It derives its powers from the provisions of section 158 of the LRA.’

[15] ‘Listing the provisions of section 158(1)(a) of the LRA does not assist the applicant’s case. Although section 158 of the LRA confers powers on this Court, including the power to issue interdictory relief, being vested with powers does not mean this Court has jurisdiction.[15] Similarly, listing sections of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act[16] (BCEA) without specifying the basis for reliance on the section of the BCEA for the relief sought, does not clothe this Court with jurisdiction.’

[17] ‘The Constitutional Court has unequivocally held that this Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes concerning an unlawful dismissal.[18] On this score, therefore, this Courts lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate Mr Maluleka’s claim of an unlawful dismissal.’

[19] ‘From the pleadings in the present application, although convoluted, it emerges that the real nature of the dispute concerns whether the applicant’s resignation is valid and whether the termination of his employment constitutes constructive dismissal.’

[20] ‘The LRA provides for a dispute-resolution mechanism for unfair dismissals, including termination of employment on grounds of constructive dismissal. This Court is not a Court of first instance.’

[21] ‘It would serve no purpose for this Court to stay impugned decisions where the applicant has not pleaded the legal basis for invoking this Court’s jurisdiction in the underlying dispute.’

[22] ‘In the circumstances, this application falls to be struck off the roll for lack of jurisdiction.’

[25] ‘When the applicant filed his application on 8 July 2026, no new facts had arisen that differed from the facts that existed on 2 July 2026.’

[26] ‘The hearing date of 23 July 2026 marks 22 days since the impugned decision he complains of. The longer it takes to approach this Court, the more urgency is diminished.[23] In the same vein, approaching this Court in haste without properly considering the relief sought with the consequence that the hearing is delayed, diminishes urgency. […] That he will not receive a performance bonus is no justification for jumping the queue.’

[27] ‘Failure to approach the court without delay does not however, constitute an automatic ground to refuse to hear the application on an urgent basis.[24] An applicant must persuade the court that he or she will not be afforded substantial redress at the hearing in due course. Mr Maluleka has not set out why he will not be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course.’

[28] ‘The test for urgency is thus not met. In the circumstances, if I had not struck this application off the roll for lack of jurisdiction, I would have struck it off the roll for lack of urgency.’

[29] ‘Mr. Maluleka has burdened this Court’s urgent roll on no less than three occasions by rushing to Court without properly considering the relief sought and therefore, without laying a proper legal basis for the relief sought and placing unnecessary constraints on this Court. This is conduct that must be discouraged.’

Relief: The application was struck off the roll for want of jurisdiction. The applicant was ordered to pay the costs on the attorney and client scale, including the costs of two counsel.

Judgment on SAFLII