Mqikela v Pristo Response Trading (JS562/22) [2025] ZALCJHB 243 (18 June 2025)

Mqikela v Pristo Response Trading (JS562/22) [2025] ZALCJHB 243 (18 June 2025)

The court found that the plaintiff's dismissal was not based on genuine operational requirements but was a direct response to her referral of an unfair labour practice dispute to the CCMA. The evidence showed that the retrenchment process was initiated within 24 hours of the referral, and the defendant's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ZALCJHB 243
Parties
Plaintiff: Nomvula Mqikela; Defendant: Pristo Response Trading
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 June 2025
Case Number
JS562/22
Procedural Posture
Automatically Unfair Dismissal / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for automatically unfair dismissal is upheld. Defendant is ordered to pay compensation and costs.
Judges
M Makhura
Legal Topics
Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Section 187 1 D, Unfair Labour Practice, Compensation, Costs of Suit
Labour Law Automatically Unfair Dismissal Section 187 1 D Unfair Labour Practice Compensation Costs of Suit

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nomvula Mqikela

Plaintiff

Pristo Response Trading

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Automatically Unfair Dismissal / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's dismissal was automatically unfair in terms of section 187(1)(d) of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the main, dominant, proximate or most likely cause of the dismissal was the referral of an unfair labour practice dispute to the CCMA.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's operational requirements defence was genuine or a fabrication.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's dismissal was not based on genuine operational requirements but was a direct response to her referral of an unfair labour practice dispute to the CCMA. The evidence showed that the retrenchment process was initiated within 24 hours of the referral, and the defendant's explanations regarding operational requirements and outsourcing were inconsistent and contradicted by documentary and oral evidence. The court applied the Afrox test and concluded that the dismissal would not have occurred but for the plaintiff's exercise of her statutory right. The referral was the main, dominant, proximate and most likely cause of the dismissal. The retrenchment was a...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for automatically unfair dismissal is upheld. Defendant is ordered to pay compensation and costs.

Orders

  • It is declared that the dismissal of the plaintiff by the defendant on 1 April 2022 is automatically unfair.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff compensation in the amount of R300 000.00, being an equivalent of 20 months’ remuneration.