Collins Letsoalo challenges suspension ruling in high-stakes appeal
Image: File
Suspended Road Accident Fund (RAF) chief executive Collins Letsoalo has hit back at the judge who refused to lift his suspension, citing nearly 40 points in which he claimed the judge had erred in his judgment.
Letsoalo has applied for leave to appeal against last month's judgment in the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria.
In a scathing judgment, Judge Nasious Moshoanathe said Letsoalo's application was deemed vexatious. He found Letsoalo's suspension effected by the RAF Board earlier this month to be lawful, rational, and reasonable.
While the judge had some harsh words regarding Letsoalo's earlier urgent application, the suspended CEO will again have to face the judge in court, as Judge Moshoanathe will have to decide on whether to grant him leave to appeal or not.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
In slapping Letsoalo with the legal costs, the judge last month said: 'The present litigation is aimed at protecting pecuniary interests as opposed to protecting a constitutional right. This court takes the view that the present application is frivolous and vexatious. Mr Letsoalo, for very selfish reasons, it seems, disavowed adequate and substantial remedies available to him in terms of the LRA (Labour Relations Act).'
In his leave to appeal application, Letsoalo remarked that the judge was biased from the start, and he (Letsoalo) had the reasonable apprehension that the judge was assisting the respondents (the RAF and its board).
He said most of the issues the court had decided upon in its judgment were raised by the court itself and not by the respondents.
In his notice for leave to appeal, Letsoalo made a big issue of the fact that the court did not find that there was no resolution by the RAF Board to appoint the firm of attorneys which had represented them in court. His counsel during legal arguments in the main application said the matter should have proceeded on an unopposed basis.
In one of his many points where he felt the court had erred in turning down his application, Letsoalo said the judge chose to ignore his (Letsoalo's) entire version as to why his suspension was unreasonable and irrational.
He also objected to the judge slapping him with the legal costs and for not accepting the argument made by his counsel that this was a constitutional matter, thus he should not face the financial consequences of losing the legal battle.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
a day ago
- IOL News
Numsa to present alternatives to Macsteel's retrenchment plan amid ongoing negotiations
This plea follows Macsteel's announcement last month that it has taken the difficult decision to enter into a process of restructuring, which may affect a number of its operations and employees. Image: Supplied The National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (Numsa) is set to deliver a formal proposal on Monday that includes a series of alternatives to retrenchments at Macsteel Service Centres South Africa. This initiative aims to establish a voluntary severance framework that respects the dignity of workers while considering the current socio-economic challenges they face. On Saturday, Numsa called on management at Macsteel to abandon its unilateral measures and return to the negotiation table in good faith. This plea follows Macsteel's announcement last month that it has taken the difficult decision to enter into a process of restructuring, which may affect a number of its operations and employees. The company said the global steel and manufacturing sectors have undergone significant changes over the past few years, and neither South Africa nor it have been immune to these challenges. 'Over the past years, the company has implemented a number of measures to address the concerns arising from this global context. However, it is now felt that further action is unavoidable,' Mcsteel said then. 'To this end, we have entered into a process of facilitation, working in collaboration with all concerned parties, including our workforce, union representatives and external stakeholders. Our objective is to be realistic—seeking a way forward that protects both our employees and the future of the company, within the constraints of the current economic climate.' Mcsteel said this process would be conducted as transparently as possible, in full compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the applicable legislation. However, Numsa on Saturday strongly condemned Macsteel for allegedly taking a unilateral decision to offer Voluntary Severance Packages (VSP) to employees outside of the formal consultation process, as prescribed in section 189A of the Labour Relations Act (LRA). Numsa general secretary, Irvin Jim, said this action constituted a direct affront to the consultative principles enshrined in the LRA and undermined the integrity of the facilitated retrenchment process currently underway. 'It is unacceptable that Macsteel has elected to bypass meaningful engagement with Numsa by offering these so-called "packages" without responding to critical questions posed by the union, as these questions are essential to the union's ability to propose viable alternatives to retrenchment,' Jim said. 'Numsa regards this approach as a deliberate attempt to exploit the financial vulnerability and uncertainty of workers facing possible retrenchment. The employer's conduct displays a disregard for the dignity and contributions of its workforce, many of whom have served the company loyally for years. The packages offered are woefully inadequate and do not reflect the socio-economic realities faced by workers or the principles of fairness and equity that should guide any severance process.' Numsa urged all its members employed at Macsteel not to accept these premature and unnegotiated offers, adding that it was actively engaging in the consultation process and is committed to tabling credible alternatives, including a fair and decent VSP framework. The union encouraged workers to await the outcome of these engagements, which are being undertaken in their collective interest. It said the package, which was being offered, was neither the product of collective consultation nor reflective of a genuine effort to cushion workers against the devastating consequences of retrenchment. 'To present such an offer, outside the consultative framework, constitutes bad faith bargaining and renders the process procedurally and substantively flawed,' said the union. Numsa further cautioned all workers to rely solely on communication from their elected union representatives and shop stewards who are actively engaged in the Section 189A consultation process. It said Macsteel's actions reflect a broader pattern of worker exploitation and corporate disregard for labour rights. 'At a time when meaningful consultation is required, the company has instead chosen to act unilaterally and with contempt for its employees' legal rights and livelihoods,' it said. 'Numsa remains resolute in its defence of workers' rights and will not relent in the face of such regressive and exploitative conduct.' BUSINESS REPORT
Daily Maverick
2 days ago
- Daily Maverick
SA practising damaging politics of the zero-sum game
While there are many prisms through which you can attempt to understand our politics, one may be to examine whether people see the entire process as a zero-sum game. There may now be mounting evidence that more politicians and voters believe every single issue must be reduced to winners and losers. Anyone with much experience of life will be aware that, as a general rule, when life improves for one person, it often improves for another. This happens in an economy all the time. It is well known that one restaurant in one city block might be popular enough to bring in a certain number of customers. But a group of competing restaurants in the same place are much more likely to bring in a much bigger number. In other words, you are more likely to be successful through sharing space with other restaurants. Growing an economy might well rest on this. One cannot just make a product and sell it on your own. You need to be part of a chain that enables your market and ensures you have both suppliers to help you make your product, and customers to buy it. People who are thinking over the longer term will often make decisions that will cost them in the short run, because they expect to gain in the longer run. Last week, Moneyweb reported that some suppliers to Pick n Pay were actually giving it goods at lower than usual prices. While this costs them in the short run, they don't want a situation where Checkers becomes so dominant they only have one person to sell to. This means that they are helping someone to regain market share. In the case of South Africa, with its incredibly diverse constituencies, and defined by its inequality, the idea of people helping one another might well be more important than in many other places. Winners and losers The nature of our economy requires everyone to be working in the same direction. Instead, what we have is people simply fighting really hard not to be the losers, and others not the winners. Currently, 50 proposals to change the Labour Relations Act are going through Nedlac. While labour analyst Andrew Levy says it's not clear if they really change the balance between workers and managers, several groups and unions have already held a protest against the proposals. They believe that their members might soon lose out, and managers might win. This kind of situation happens all the time in our society. In our politics, the coalition sometimes appears to be reduced to fights between the ANC and the DA that are literally about ensuring one wins and the other loses. Because this is all happening in public, and they are representing constituencies, it can give the impression that those constituencies are really fighting to ensure they are not seen to lose. This transactional approach, and the damage it can cause, is wonderfully, and horrifically, illustrated by the Trump administration's approach to trade. One of the most important dynamics of the past 30 years has been the rise of China as a manufacturer of trade goods. It has made these goods at a cheaper price than many other places, and sold them. This has exported deflation around the world – the price of a cheap bicycle has declined dramatically in real terms since the 1980s. This is largely because companies in different countries have traded with each other. And both parties have become very rich doing so. Trump appears to believe that if one country is getting rich, the other must be losing out. The overwhelming evidence is that this is not the case. Instead, both parties win through these transactions. In some ways, such is the impact of the US, that this example might well be having an impact on our politics. At the same time, another important aspect of how life really works is being lost. In many cases, there is no clear 'winner' and clear 'loser'. Often it is entirely grey, with very little difference in shade. The NHI stand-off In our politics now, it seems that everything must become a life and death situation, that there will be armageddon if someone does not get what they want. Given our inequality, this can sometimes appear as if it is a life-and-death struggle between classes. The NHI might be a useful example: those who support it say the rich are trying to condemn the poor to death, those who oppose it say the rich will lose everything they have. Instead, this is something that should really be negotiated between representatives of constituencies. And there should be a solution that everyone can live with. There are many reasons why we are in this situation. Our racialised inequality must be an important reason. Those who are poor have everything to gain and nothing to lose, while those who are rich have everything to lose and nothing to gain. But this may also be the result of deliberate political strategy. Just as politicians have created abortion as a political issue in the US, by forcing people to take a position, so our leaders often do the same. Both the ANC and the DA benefit from continuing the fight around the NHI. They both get to demonstrate to their constituencies that they are fighting for them. And because the struggle for voters is now so difficult and so intense, the stakes rise each time, and so it is more likely that politicians will behave in this way. All of this feeds an artificial intensity in our politics.
IOL News
5 days ago
- IOL News
Matshela Koko won't challenge court ruling on R1. 56bn Eskom, ABB settlement
Former acting Eskom chief executive Matshela Koko will not challenge the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria judgment dismissing his application to intervene in the dispute between the power utility and ABB South Africa, which agreed to pay almost R1.56 billion in 2020. Image: Bheki Radebe / Independent Newspapers Former acting Eskom chief executive, Matshela Koko, will not challenge the ruling declining his bid to intervene in the R1.56 billion settlement agreement reached by the power utility and ABB South Africa. The Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, last month dismissed with costs Koko's application to intervene in the matter in terms of an earlier judgment delivered in April 2024. At the time, the high court ordered any interested party who has a direct and material interest in its orders on the R1.56bn settlement to apply within 30 days of the last date of publication of the order for leave to intervene and describe the nature of their interest in the relief and the relief sought. The court also ordered that interested parties must show cause, on a date and on such terms as it may determine after receipt of any application why the order should be altered, varied or rescinded. In compliance with the April 2024 order Koko complained that unflattering allegations were made against him in the papers filed in the review proceedings and that he was referred to by name and some paragraphs contain reference to his conduct. He said the settlement agreement for ABB to pay Eskom had negative consequences for him as his bank account was closed and he suffered reputational harm. In refusing Koko's intervention application, Acting Judge Irene de Vos found that he lacked a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the review proceedings. "Koko launched an application to rescind an order in circumstances where he largely accepts the order is correct; where he is not mentioned in either the order or the judgment; for purposes of protecting his reputation," the acting judge stated. The contract in question was for the provision of control and instrumentation system for the coal-fired Kusile Power Station project constructed under Eskom's nation building programme to increase its generating capacity. Eskom, ABB and the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) later applied to the court to set aside the contract as a result of corruption and bribery that occurred in the award. The SIU has publicly indicated that it intends to claim monies from Koko, who fears such action. He told the court that not having been cited in the review proceedings means he is limited in presenting a defence in potential future proceedings to be brought against him. In response to questions, Koko, who represented himself in the matter, said the judgment could be summarised as a mixed outcome, adding that he lost the battle to intervene in the review proceedings, but emerged with a significant procedural victory in the broader context. He further said he won the war by emerging from the case without adverse findings or direct legal accountability. Koko added that this procedural victory distances him from the ABB contract irregularities and undermines the narrative tying him to corruption, providing him with a solid defence in this specific legal chapter. [email protected] [email protected]
