South African Municipal Workers' Union v Mokgatla

The second to sixth appellants were national office bearers of SAMWU (first appellant), while the 13 respondents were provincial office bearers. During 2012-2013, suspicions arose that the appellants were involved in financial mismanagement, corruption and misappropriation of SAMWU's funds, triggered by the failure of SAMWU's finance committee to provide financial reports for 2013. In April 2014, SAMWU's Central Executive Committee met and a motion was proposed to remove the appellants from office, but no resolution was passed. While the motion stood postponed, the appellants removed the respondents from office, suspending and expelling them from SAMWU membership and employment for allegedly spreading malicious information, being unruly or disruptive, and undermining national office bearers. The respondents brought an application in the High Court challenging their removal, contending that prescribed disciplinary procedures in clauses 3.5.3, 6.5.6, 7.3.9 and 16.4 of SAMWU's constitution were flouted. The appellants raised a special plea that the High Court lacked jurisdiction in terms of s 157(1) of the LRA.

• Whether the High Court and the Labour Court have concurrent jurisdiction in respect of disputes emanating from s 158(1)(e) of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
• Whether disputes based on non-adherence to disciplinary procedures provided in the constitution of a trade union fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court
• Whether s 158(1)(e)(i) of the LRA affords litigants a choice of fora
• Whether the enforcement of provisions of a trade union constitution is a purely common law issue or falls within the LRA framework

1. The appeal succeeds with costs. 2. The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with: 'The application is dismissed with costs.'

Where a dispute concerns non-compliance with the constitution of a trade union as contemplated in s 158(1)(e)(i) of the LRA, the Labour Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine that dispute. Section 158(1) provides both remedial powers and substantive jurisdictional bases for the Labour Court. There is no distinction between different grounds of jurisdiction under s 158(1) - if a case falls within any subsection of s 158(1), the Labour Court's jurisdiction is exclusive. Jurisdiction is determined by the pleadings, not by how parties characterize their claims during argument or by attempts to frame disputes as purely common law matters. The LRA establishes a comprehensive framework for labour relations disputes and where legislation is enacted to give effect to rights in a particular area, that system must be used rather than allowing litigants to bypass it.

The court noted its concern about persistent attempts by practitioners to fashion cases to suit their clients' choice of forum. The court also observed that the judgment and order of the court a quo remained extant with definite legal consequences (such as potential claims for damages for wrongful dismissal based on that judgment), and that the contents of the letter from the respondents' attorneys did not constitute an abandonment of the order, meaning the appeal remained live for determination. The court also remarked that the case did not warrant an award of costs for two counsel to the appellants.

This case clarifies and reinforces the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court over disputes concerning non-compliance with the constitution of a trade union under s 158(1)(e)(i) of the LRA. It confirms that litigants cannot bypass the Labour Court by characterizing such disputes as purely common law matters or by disavowing reliance on the LRA during argument. The case emphasizes that jurisdiction is determined by the pleadings, not by how parties characterize their claims in argument. It reiterates the Constitutional Court's principles from Chirwa and Gcaba that the LRA establishes a comprehensive framework for labour relations disputes and that once carefully crafted dispute-resolution structures exist, those systems must be used. The judgment warns against attempts by practitioners to fashion cases to suit their clients' choice of forum and confirms that all grounds of jurisdiction under s 158(1) of the LRA confer exclusive (not concurrent) jurisdiction on the Labour Court.