- The Constitutional Court overturned a High Court decision that required a litigant to undergo a mental health assessment.
- The Court found there was no evidence or proper legal basis for such an order.
- A more limited vexatious litigant order remains in place, restricting future litigation related to the same employment dispute.
The Constitutional Court has ruled that courts cannot force litigants to undergo mental health assessments unless there is evidence and a proper legal reason to do so.
Justice Nambitha Dambuza-Mayosi, writing for a unanimous bench, partially upheld Thabang Motjamela’s appeal and set aside the High Court’s order that he undergo a mental health assessment before pursuing further litigation against the George Local Municipality.
However, the court upheld a narrower order that stops Motjamela from bringing further legal proceedings about his former employment under the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) unless he first gets permission from the relevant court.
Employment dispute led to years of litigation
Motjamela worked for the George Local Municipality in 2018 on two fixed-term EPWP contracts. When those contracts ended, he and other workers tried but failed to secure permanent jobs through the South African Local Government Bargaining Council.
He then took his dispute to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA), arguing that he was unfairly left out of a later recruitment process. The CCMA dismissed his case and found his referral to be vexatious.
Motjamela challenged these decisions in the Labour Court, Labour Appeal Court, High Court, and Constitutional Court, and also continued with more legal proceedings about the same employment dispute.
In response, the George Local Municipality asked the High Court to label Motjamela a vexatious litigant, saying he had repeatedly pursued cases with no merit.
High Court went too far
The High Court agreed with the municipality and also ordered that Motjamela undergo a mental health assessment before he could take any further legal action. The Constitutional Court found that this order was not justified and could not stand.
Justice Dambuza-Mayosi said that not only did the Local Municipality never ask for a mental health assessment order, but there was also no clear basis for the High Court’s claim that Motjamela seemed unable to understand the proceedings due to a mental illness or intellectual disability.
The court found there was no evidence to support such an order and that the High Court had ignored established legal procedures for dealing with questions of mental capacity.
Justice Dambuza-Mayosi said that questioning someone’s mental health and legal capacity, especially in open court, is something that must never be done carelessly.
She explained that South African law already has procedures under the Mental Health Care Act and Uniform Rule 57 for dealing with concerns about a person’s mental capacity, and those rules require solid evidence before any such orders are made.
Court confirms limits on future litigation
While the Constitutional Court overturned the mental health assessment order, it agreed that Motjamela’s long history of litigation justified restrictions on future legal proceedings about his former EPWP employment.
Justice Dambuza-Mayosi said that the key issue is when litigation is being used abusively to try to get a desired outcome through persistence, not on the strength of the case.
The court found that the High Court’s original order was too broad, as it would have stopped Motjamela from bringing any legal case against anyone, no matter the issue. Instead, it replaced the order with one only covering cases against the George Local Municipality about his terminated EPWP jobs.
The Constitutional Court also told its Registrar not to accept any more applications from Motjamela about those employment disputes, or about matters arising from this order, such as requests for rescission, direct access, or permission for a direct appeal.
Justice Dambuza-Mayosi said that the flood of meritless applications from Mr Motjamela shows he is likely to continue unless steps are taken to stop it.
No order for legal costs
The George Local Municipality asked for a costs order, saying public money had been used over and over to defend against Motjamela’s cases.
The Constitutional Court refused to award costs, noting that Motjamela had been partly successful in having the unlawful mental health assessment order overturned. Each side was told to pay its own legal costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
