Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Solidarity obo Erasmus v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd (C1001/18) [2024] ZALCCT 18; (2024) 45 ILJ 2073 (LC) (24 May 2024)
The Labour Court found Eskom unfairly discriminated by excluding white males from shortlisting, held the practice was an absolute barrier, and awarded 18 months’ salary.
Landman v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and Another (J 232/2013) [2024] ZALCJHB 147; [2024] 7 BLLR 746 (LC) (15 March 2024)
The Labour Court held that the Department unfairly discriminated by not shortlisting the applicant, but awarded compensation rather than promotion.
Magistrates Commission and Others v Lawrence (388/2020) [2021] ZASCA 165; [2022] 1 All SA 321 (SCA); (2022) 43 ILJ 567 (SCA); 2022 (4) SA 107 (SCA) (2 December 2021)
The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed a challenge to magistrate shortlisting, holding that the Bloemfontein committee lacked a quorum and that race-based exclusion was unlawful.
Solidarity obo Van Rooyen and 6 Others v South African Police Service and 5 Others (JS105/17) [2021] ZALCJHB 463 (26 February 2021)
The Labour Court dismissed a discrimination claim over SAPS promotions made under a collective agreement’s representivity criterion, finding no proven unfair discrimination.
Ethekweni Municipality v Nadesan and Others (D 1681-17) [2021] ZALCD 1; [2021] 6 BLLR 598 (LC); (2021) 42 ILJ 1480 (LC) (3 February 2021)
The court held that the appellant's decision to re-advertise the post for the purpose of attracting candidates from under-represented groups was irrational, as there was no pipeline of suitable African female candidates and no evidence that such candidates existed or would apply. The employment equity plan's targets could be met elsewhere within the municipality, and the appellant's reliance on inaccurate demographic statistics further undermined the rationality of the decision. The court found that rationality is a minimum requirement for the lawful implementation of affirmative action measu…
Source excerpt
Democratic Alliance v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (21424/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 326 (29 July 2020)
The High Court dismissed the Democratic Alliance’s leave-to-appeal application over disaster-relief criteria and costs, finding no reasonable prospects or compelling reason.
Cape Bar v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (9435/19) [2020] ZAWCHC 51; [2020] 3 All SA 413 (WCC); 2020 (6) SA 165 (WCC) (10 June 2020)
The Court held that the Regulations and Rules governing the composition of Provincial Councils under the Legal Practice Act do not constitute unfair discrimination against black people or women. The quota system guarantees representation for historically disadvantaged groups and is rationally connected to the transformation and restructuring objectives of the Act. The inclusion of a seat for a white man does not invalidate the scheme, as the majority of seats are reserved for disadvantaged groups. The Minister acted within his powers in promulgating the Regulations, and the scheme is neither…
Source excerpt
Solidarity v Minister of Labour and Others (J3092/18) [2019] ZALCJHB 277; [2020] 1 BLLR 79 (LC); (2020) 41 ILJ 273 (LC) (8 October 2019)
The court held that the Equality Report issued by the South African Human Rights Commission is advisory and not binding on government or any other party. The SAHRC's powers under the Constitution and its enabling legislation are limited to making recommendations and conducting research; it cannot issue binding directions or order legislative amendments. The report was compiled as part of the SAHRC's monitoring and assessment function, not as a result of an investigation into a violation of human rights. The court found no statutory or constitutional basis to treat the report as binding, nor a…
Source excerpt
Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Another v SALGBC and Others (JR369/15) [2019] ZALCJHB 91 (10 May 2019)
The court found that the dispute referred by Mr Pieterse was a classic unfair labour practice dispute, not an unfair discrimination dispute. The municipality failed to apply its mind to the minimum requirements and core functions of the post, focusing solely on demographics. The arbitrator's finding that the municipality committed an unfair labour practice was reasonable and not liable to be set aside. However, the award of protected promotion was not supported by evidence that Mr Pieterse would have been promoted but for the unfair conduct, and such remedy is not permissible without proof of…
Source excerpt
Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another v South African Restructuring and Insolvency Practitioners Association and Others (693/15) [2016] ZASCA 196; [2017] 1 All SA 331 (SCA); 2017 (3) SA 95 (SCA) (2 December 2016)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Minister's policy for appointing insolvency practitioners was unconstitutional, irrational, and unlawful. The policy imposed a rigid quota system based on race and gender, lacking flexibility and failing to consider the skills, experience, and suitability of practitioners. It excluded the interests and wishes of creditors and employees, which are central to insolvency proceedings. The policy was not rationally connected to its stated objectives, as it was formulated without proper demographic data or justification for the 4:3:2:1 ratio. The Minister a…
Source excerpt
Explore more
