- Thabang Motjamela claimed R17.7 million after he was not appointed to a permanent EPWP senior worker post.
- His damages claim included salary, bonuses, provident fund, medical aid, UIF, and annual increases stretching to 2054.
- The High Court in Western Cape dismissed the application but declined to order him to pay the municipality’s legal costs.
For Thabang Motjamela, being sent for a medical examination was supposed to mark the start of a new chapter. After years of working on Expanded Public Works Programme contracts, he believed the Garden Route District Municipality had finally chosen him for permanent employment.
Being shortlisted and sent for a medical assessment convinced him that a stable job, pension, and financial security were finally within reach. However, the appointment never came. That shattered expectation became the basis for a R17.7 million damages claim, which the High Court in the Western Cape has now dismissed.
From EPWP worker to multimillion-rand claim
Motjamela turned to the court seeking declaratory relief and damages following the municipality’s 2021 recruitment process for a permanent senior worker position.
He alleged the municipality acted wrongfully, negligently, and unlawfully by requiring him to undergo a medical examination after shortlisting him, even though they already knew he had a criminal record.
According to Motjamela, the municipality’s conduct amounted to a misrepresentation that he had secured the post. He argued that losing the opportunity cost him decades of income and employment benefits.
Salary, benefits and retirement formed the claim
Motjamela’s damages claim went far beyond just a missed monthly salary. He calculated his projected earnings from 2021 until his planned retirement in 2054 at R32,285,106.58. After deducting R14,528,298.96 in tax, he sought a net award of R17,756,807.62.
His calculations included basic salary, annual bonuses, provident fund contributions, medical aid, UIF, salary progression, and yearly increases of 7 percent. He also claimed compensation for emotional distress, psychological harm, humiliation, and loss of dignity, arguing that the failed appointment violated his constitutional rights.
In a proposed settlement submitted to the municipality, Motjamela asked to be compensated for his salary and benefits from April 2021, together with interest and legal costs, and stated that payment could be made without the municipality admitting liability.
Municipality opposed the application
The Garden Route District Municipality opposed the claim, arguing that Motjamela had not established a legal basis for the relief he wanted.
Judge PS Van Zyl held that claims for delictual damages require proof of wrongfulness, fault, causation, and actual loss, issues that usually demand oral evidence, not just affidavits.
The judge said the founding papers contained too little factual material and too few supporting documents to establish liability, describing the application as fundamentally defective. “The application is still-born. It is bare and vague. No case is made out on the papers for any of the relief sought,” Judge Van Zyl said.
A legal battle spanning multiple courts
The judgment records that Motjamela has pursued similar disputes arising from public works employment through numerous legal forums over several years.
His cases have come before the South African Local Government Bargaining Council, the CCMA, the Labour Court, the Labour Appeal Court, and the Constitutional Court, all tied to his efforts to secure permanent employment with either the George Local Municipality or the Garden Route District Municipality.
Judge Van Zyl noted that the Constitutional Court had already described Motjamela’s efforts as a “relentless campaign of litigation” and found that his latest application raised issues that had repeatedly been aired before different courts.
Court spares him a costs order
Despite dismissing the application, the High Court declined to order Motjamela to pay the municipality’s legal costs.
Judge Van Zyl said he’d considered the applicant’s personal circumstances, noting that Motjamela is unemployed, indigent, and comes from a family with limited means. While acknowledging Motjamela’s persistence, the judge concluded that a costs order would serve little purpose.
The application was dismissed, with each party ordered to pay their own legal costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
