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 Keyter and Others v Domans NO and Others (JS553/24) [2025] ZALCJHB 221 (13 June 2025)
The Labour Court held that section 133 of the Companies Act is not a jurisdictional bar, but it suspends unfair dismissal proceedings while business rescue continues.
Viljoen v Peninsula Plumbing and Engineering Wroks (Pty) Ltd (C383/2021) [2025] ZALCCT 31 (15 May 2025)
The court found that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the existence of a two-tier retirement age policy at the respondent firm, distinguishing between site workers (retirement at 60) and administrative/supervisory staff (retirement at 65). The plaintiff, Viljoen, was employed as an artisan plumber and subject to the retirement age of 60, as confirmed by the Building Industry Bargaining Council agreement, the company's retirement policy, and signed annexures to employment contracts. The differential treatment was justified by the nature of the work and industry practice. The court held th…
Source excerpt
Slabbert v Muji Motor Group (Pty) Ltd (D315/21) [2024] ZALCD 30; (2024) 45 ILJ 2817 (LC) (16 September 2024)
The court found that there was no agreed retirement age between the applicant and the respondent or its predecessor. The respondent failed to prove that the industry norm of 65 years applied to the applicant's position, as he was not a member of the relevant provident funds nor obliged to join them, and no evidence was presented that employees in similar capacities retire at 65. The most proximate cause of the applicant's dismissal was his age, not the transfer of business. The respondent was not entitled to impose retirement based on industry agreements that did not bind the applicant. Accor…
Source excerpt
Seokwane v Bidvest Prestige Cleaning Services (Pty) Ltd (JS 1040/20) [2023] ZALCJHB 313; [2024] 2 BLLR 194 (LC); (2024) 45 ILJ 333 (LC) (8 November 2023)
The court found that the respondent's dismissal of the applicant was not justified under section 187(2)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, as the real and proximate reason for the dismissal was operational requirements rather than the applicant having reached retirement age. The respondent disregarded its own retirement policy by employing the applicant after she had already passed the stipulated retirement age and failed to provide her with fair notice or clarity regarding her retirement date. The court held that the respondent's conduct amounted to unfair discrimination based on age, rendering…
Source excerpt
Ngcobo v Member of Executive Council: Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs: Kwazulu-Natal and Another (D492/2020) [2023] ZALCD 14 (14 August 2023)
The Labour Court found that the applicant was unfairly denied appointment because of age and ordered retrospective appointment, remuneration, and costs.
Mocwaledi v Premier of the Northern Cape Province (C681/2019) [2023] ZALCCT 1; [2023] 3 BLLR 254 (LC) (19 January 2023)
The court found that the applicant had reached the statutory retirement age of 65 in January 2019, as set out in the Public Service Act. Although the respondent's administrative handling of the retirement process was lacking in professionalism and failed to provide proper notification, this did not render the dismissal automatically unfair under section 187(1)(f) of the LRA. The jurisprudence of the Labour Appeal Court confirms that retention of an employee beyond retirement age does not create a new contract or alter the retirement age, and the employer retains the right to terminate employm…
Source excerpt
Pedra v Wisium SA (Pty) Ltd (JS550/17) [2022] ZALCJHB 53 (15 March 2022)
The Labour Court held that the claim was not defective, found the dispute to be an automatically unfair dismissal over age discrimination, and held the respondent to the pre-trial agreement to begin.
Motlhoioa v Council for Scientific Research and Industrial Research (JS614/20) [2021] ZALCJHB 340 (6 October 2021)
The Labour Court does not lack jurisdiction to adjudicate the unfair discrimination dispute, even though only an unfair labour practice dispute was referred to the CCMA, as the substance of the dispute conciliated is determinative. The Court cannot presently determine whether it has jurisdiction over the automatically unfair dismissal dispute due to lack of evidence regarding what was conciliated, but this issue may be resolved at trial through evidence, including testimony from the CCMA commissioner. The referral of the dispute to the CCMA was not premature, as the alleged dismissal had occu…
Source excerpt
Green v Hartog (C88/2016) [2017] ZALCCT 40 (5 September 2017)
The Labour Court held that the employee was not dismissed but agreed to retire rather than face discipline, so an automatically unfair dismissal claim failed.
Nelson v Panda Interiors CC (JS275/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 518 (9 December 2016)
The Labour Court dismissed an exception to a claim that an employee was dismissed for age discrimination, finding the statement of claim disclosed a valid cause of action.
Explore more
