THE Constitutional Court (ConCourt) bench has dismissed a US$97 247 lawsuit filed by a former Old Mutual Shared Service employee who was challenging his retrenchment package.
In his application, Christmas Mazarire had cited his employer Old Mutual Shared Service, the retrenchment board, the Minister of Public Service and the Attorney-General as respondents.
His application was heard by Justices Paddington Garwe, Rita Makarau and Ben Hlatshwayo.
Mazarire accused his employer and the retrenchment board of violating his labour rights as guaranteed under section 65 of the Constitution.
He alleged that the Supreme Court violated his rights to a fair hearing, and his right to the equal protection and benefit of the law, among other rights.
Mazarire wanted the Supreme Court ruling declared unconstitutional, and Old Mutual Shared Service to be ordered to pay him US$97 247.
According to court documents, Mazarire was retrenched without notice in 2014.
Mazarire then approached the High Court which ordered his reinstatement, and restoration of his salary and benefits.
- ‘Govt spineless on wetland land barons’
- SA’s search for a fairer electoral system
- SA’s search for a fairer electoral system
- Mawere demands judge’s recusal
Keep Reading
In July 2014, Old Mutual Shared Service reinstated him with his salary and benefits, and immediately gave him notice of its intention to retrench him again.
In March, 2015, the Retrenchment Board notified the parties that the application by Old Mutual to retrench Mazarire had been approved.
On April 16, 2015, Old Mutual paid Mazarire a certain sum of money representing its computation of the retrenchment award.
In computing the award, Old Mutual used Mazarire’s pensionable salary and excluded his non-pensionable benefits and allowances.
Mazarire alleged that this process prejudiced him of US$97 247,07 as it did not include the benefits and allowances that he was entitled to over and above the pensionable salary.
Unhappy with that decision, Mazarire sought to have it reviewed by the Labour Court, and he was unsuccessful.
The application for review was dismissed.
Mazarire filed leave to appeal the Labour Court decision to the Supreme Court and was successful.
He was not satisfied with the decision and filed this application for direct access.
However, the ConCourt dismissed his application.
“The intended application, not having been properly pleaded, is fatally defective and, therefore, incompetent. It follows that it cannot be in the interests of justice that direct access be granted in respect of such an application,” the judges ruled.
They further ruled that Mazarire’s request for order from the ConCourt to be paid US$97 247 was not a constitutional matter.
“It is, therefore, my conclusion that the intended application does not raise a constitutional issue that will trigger the jurisdiction of this court. It follows that it is not in the interests of justice that direct access to the court be granted.
“In the result, the following order is made: The application is dismissed and each party shall bear its own costs,” the judges ruled.
