Sacked employee drags MVA to court, demanding his job back
A senior claims officer at the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund (MVA), Lesesa Henry Mtonga, has dragged his former employer to court demanding reinstatement.
Mtonga’s contract of employment ended on March 31st 2025, but he is not happy that MVA did not renew it despite his good performance.
He wants the employment to continue pending the outcome of judicial review on the decision by the Chief Executive Officer not to renew, saying he acted unlawfully, and arguing that his matter is urgent.
He said that despite an earlier court order on March 20, 2025, MVA went ahead and terminated his employment on the 26th March 2025, and therefore the CEO should face a charge for contempt of court.
“The Respondents however, on the 26th March 2025 wrote to the Applicant terminating the contract of employment in accordance with their own interpretation to which the Applicant responded indicating that the essence of the court order was that his employment would endure beyond 31st March 2025 until the Honorable Court decides otherwise,” he argued in his papers.
He added that according to the MVA Act, the responsibility to hire and terminate employment of senior officer lies entirely with the Board of Directors and not the CEO as it happened in his case.
However, the MVA argued that the matter was not urgent in that Mtonga was informed as early as 3rd February 2025 that his contract of employment was ending on March 31st, 2025 but he did nothing until sometime in March when he approached the High Court to have his employment extended pending review of the decision not extend.
MVA said that they shouldn’t be charged with contempt since their main intention was to protect their operations and business continuity and therefore request Mtonga to hand over his office, at the instruction of the Board.
“The respondents have always acted in good faith towards the Applicant, which included holding meetings to resolve issues relating to the interpretation of the Order as the intention has always been to protect the interests of MVA operations by limiting operational risks and ensuring business continuity. It is the Respondents submission that the conduct was always in compliance with the court order and the respondents always intended to comply with the order,” the respondents argued.
The further argued that the matter was not urgent and that the urgency was self inflicted.
MVA was represented by Thabo Shatho Nlebgwa whilst Mtonga was represented by Samuel Plaatjie.
Justice Omphemetse Motumise reserved judgment for May 8, 2025.
