Labour Court rules against SA diplomat in urgent dismissal case from Madagascar.
Image: AI Generated
The Labour Court in Johannesburg has struck an urgent application off the roll brought by a senior government official challenging his dismissal and recall from a foreign posting, finding that the urgency claimed was self-created and unjustified.
Judge Maitu Phahane ruled against Derrick Welent Barry, a Corporate Services Manager formerly stationed at South Africa’s embassy in Antananarivo, Madagascar.
Barry had approached the court on an urgent basis seeking to have his dismissal declared unlawful. He argued that his termination and recall to South Africa, effected in November 2025, were invalid because they were carried out by the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation rather than the Director-General, who he claimed was the only official legally empowered to do so.
He also sought, in the alternative, to have the Minister’s decision reviewed and set aside.
The respondents – the Department of International Relations and Cooperation, its Minister, and its Director-General – opposed the application, arguing that it lacked urgency and merit.
The court heard that Barry was suspended in January 2025 and later faced disciplinary proceedings under public service regulations. Following a hearing, he was dismissed in June 2025, with the sanction communicated to him in early July.
Barry lodged an internal appeal, but this was ultimately dismissed in November 2025. He was then instructed to return to South Africa within 30 days, with arrangements made for his relocation.
However, Barry failed to cooperate with the transfer process, despite repeated communications from the department warning him that his salary and benefits would cease after 31 December 2025.
Central to the court’s ruling was Barry’s delay in approaching the court. Judge Phehane noted that Barry only launched his urgent application weeks after receiving the outcome of his appeal, despite claiming the decision was unlawful from the outset.
Barry attributed the delay to the festive season shutdown, his attorney’s office closure, and personal anxiety. The court rejected these explanations as unconvincing.
“The applicant sat back and waited,” the judge said, adding that he had been clearly informed that further engagement from the department would not be forthcoming and that the transfer process would continue.
The court also found inconsistencies in Barry’s version, particularly his claim that he did not receive certain emails regarding his relocation, despite acknowledging receipt of others sent to the same addresses.
Importantly, the court pointed out that Barry had already referred an unfair dismissal dispute to a bargaining council, where arbitration was scheduled for April 2026.
Judge Phehane held that this avenue provided Barry with substantial redress in due course, undermining his claim that urgent court intervention was necessary.
While acknowledging the difficult situation faced by Barry and his family, the court stressed that this did not justify bypassing ordinary legal processes.
The judgment also echoed growing judicial concern about the misuse of urgent court procedures. The court emphasised that urgent applications are intended for genuinely pressing matters and should not be used where delays are of a litigant’s own making.
The court struck the application off the roll for lack of urgency and made no order as to costs.
The ruling means that Barry must now pursue his challenge through the ordinary dispute resolution mechanisms, including the pending arbitration process.
IOL News