Labour Court dismisses R10 million claim from brother of deceased employee

A man seeking to claim R10 million due to his late brother's dismissal had his application dismissed by the Labour Court in Cape Town.

Thabang Motjamela claimed that the family experienced hardship following the dismissal of his late brother, Thabiso Motjamela.

Thabiso worked for Stanmar Motors in George from May 2014, but his employment ended rather tumultuously in September 2018 after he was dismissed following an incident that reportedly led to damages exceeding R46,000. 

Despite this setback, an assessment by the Dispute Resolution Centre (DRC) later deemed his dismissal unfair, resulting in an order for the dealership to compensate Thabiso with over R14,000 which was tantamount to two months' salary. However, no reinstatement was ordered.

The complications in this case began to mount when Thabiso, undeterred by his earlier dismissal, sought reinstatement through a review application in January 2020. This application, however, was dismissed, as was a subsequent appeal lodged in September 2023.

In November 2023, the dealership paid to the deceased his two months' salary as ordered by the DRC. The payment was made despite the pending petition for leave to appeal in the Labour Appeal Court.

In August 2024, six months after Thabiso's death, the Labour Appeal Court eventually heard the matter and also dismissed it and indicated that the case had no prospects of success.

Undeterred, his brother, Thabang, pursued the matter and brought another application in February 2025 where he argued that the dismissal of the late Thabiso was both procedurally and substantively unfair. He claimed R10 million for the emotional and financial harm inflicted upon his family. In one of the numerous applications, the amount initially claimed was R5 million, but it was also dismissed.

However, the dealership indicated that the matter had already been finalised by the DRC. 

The dealership contended that Thabanga's claim was delictual, not falling under the Labour Relations Act. Furthermore, they argued that his application failed to meet the requirements for a delictual claim. Even if a delictual claim could be established, it would be prescribed, given that the dismissal occurred in 2014.

Moreover, the dealership further argued that since there was a pending case on the same facts before the Constitutional Court, therefore the Labour Court has no jurisdiction on the matter.

The dealership submitted that the application should be dismissed with costs because the application was ill-considered and should have been withdrawn, but instead, Thabang persisted with a meritless application.

"There is no reason why the respondent (dealership) should be out of pocket for defending a meritless application. The respondent insisted that the applicant should be ordered to pay punitive costs," said the dealership.

Acting Judge Pamela Melapi highlighted that Thabang's application lacked merit and that he had previously insisted on pursuing what appeared to be a fruitless litigation effort.

"The applicant (Thabang) came to court with a meritless application, which should not have been pursued, and fairness dictates that the respondent cannot be expected to endure costs defending meritless litigation," said the judge.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application and issued a cost order against Thabang.

Get your news on the go, click here to join the Cape Argus News WhatsApp channel.

Cape Argus