Cape Town cop who attacked man over ‘stolen TV’ loses dismissal challenge
A City of Cape Town traffic officer who assaulted a member of the public while off duty has lost his case to be reinstated.
Image: File
A City of Cape Town traffic officer who assaulted a member of the public while off duty in a vigilante-style confrontation over an alleged stolen television has lost his bid to overturn his dismissal.
The Cape Town Labour Court ruled that law enforcement officers cannot escape their professional obligations simply by clocking off.
Simphiwe Matyholo, who served as a policeman for eight years before working as a traffic inspector for 13 years, was fired after admitting to assaulting and threatening a member of the public he believed had stolen his TV set.
The incident occurred while he was off duty, but the court found this distinction irrelevant given his role as a peace officer.
The Labour Court in Cape Town dismissed Matyholo's review application last week, with Acting Judge Barthus finding that the former inspector had "no reasonable defence" to his conduct and that the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively fair.
Central to Matyholo's defence was his argument that the City of Cape Town had failed to prove a sufficient link between his off-duty misconduct and his employment relationship.
He argued that employers must demonstrate that an employee's conduct had actually damaged the employment relationship.
Judge Barthus ruled that, as a municipal law enforcement officer and custodian of public peace, Matyholo had "an obvious duty not to conduct himself in a manner that would bring the Third Respondent [City of Cape Town] into disrepute and especially not to engage in the unlawful act of assault."
In Matyholo's case, taking the law into his own hands as a peace officer created an inherent conflict with his professional responsibilities, the ruling noted.
The judge upheld Matyholo’s dismissal.
"Third Respondent submitted that the Applicant [Matyholo] cannot be trusted to perform the duty of a Traffic/Peace officer after having taken the law into his own hands. The conclusion is logical," the judgment stated.
Commissioner "entered the fray"
Matyholo's legal team raised an intriguing procedural objection: that Commissioner Gordon Edwards, who presided over the initial arbitration, had overstepped by referencing police regulations and the National Road Traffic Enforcement Code that the City hadn't specifically cited in argument.
The applicant claimed this constituted "entering the fray," a legal term for when an adjudicator improperly advocates for one side.
Judge Barthus dismissed this argument, noting that courts and arbitrators are entitled to raise questions of law on their own initiative, particularly when they emerge from the evidence and are central to the dispute.
"The question then is whether the Applicant, who was a Policeman for 8 years and a Traffic Officer for 13 years, could be held to the standard of a law enforcement officer while off duty as prescribed," the court stated.
"The question can only be answered in the affirmative."
Too little, too late
However, the City of Cape Town filed its legal response four months late, with the municipality blaming difficulties in securing legal services.
The court found the explanation for the delay inadequate, noting that not every period of delay was properly explained and that the City had failed to address key issues like prospects of success and prejudice to Matyholo.
Despite dismissing the City's condonation application for the late filing, the court still ruled against Matyholo on the basis on merits, finding that the commissioner's decision fell within the "band of reasonableness" and was correct in law.
Matyholo had conceded from the outset that "the findings made by the Commissioner on the evidence fall within the band of reasonableness," significantly weakening his position.
The court made no order as to costs.
IOL Business