South Africa Case Law

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (JR853/18)

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (JR853/18) [2022] ZALCJHB 272 (4 October 2022)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR853/18

Judge

Nkutha-Nkontwana

The court found that the dispute concerned a mutual interest arising from a unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment, specifically the reduction of the nightshift allowance. Despite procedural irregularities in the referral, the matter was properly conciliated and arbitrated under section 74(4) of the LRA, as the respondent employees were essential services workers precluded from striking. The evidence established that the previous nightshift allowance rate had become an entrenched benefit through long-standing practice, and the employer's unilateral reduction was impermissible…

Source excerpt

• Essential Services
• Unilateral Change To Terms
• Mutual Interest Dispute
• Arbitration Jurisdiction
• Collective Bargaining
• Nightshift Allowance

Dainfern Square (Pty) Ltd v Dlamini NO and Other (4627/2021)

Dainfern Square (Pty) Ltd v Dlamini NO and Other (4627/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 729 (8 November 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

4627/2021

Judge

Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen

The High Court held that it could decide an arbitrator’s jurisdiction during ongoing arbitration and ruled that this enrichment dispute fell outside the lease arbitration clause.

• Arbitration Jurisdiction
• Declaratory Relief
• Unjustified Enrichment
• Contract Interpretation
• Arbitration-jurisdiction
• Declaratory-relief

SIAS Joubert Constructions CC v D L Soko and Another (1778/2019)

SIAS Joubert Constructions CC v D L Soko and Another (1778/2019) [2020] ZAMPMBHC 25 (31 December 2020)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

1778/2019

Judge

B A Mashile

The court found that the adjudicator's determination, once made an order of court and not challenged within the prescribed ten-day period, becomes final and binding upon the parties. The Applicant was entitled to enforce the determination as a contractual obligation in terms of Clause 7.2.2 of the adjudication rules. The Respondent's failure to challenge the determination within the stipulated period and subsequent compliance with the court order precluded any further referral to arbitration. The Second Respondent, therefore, lacked jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute, and the Applicant was…

Source excerpt

• Enforcement Of Adjudicator Determination
• Arbitration Jurisdiction
• Finality Of Court Orders
• Interpretation Of Contractual Clauses

Transnet Group Capital v Khwela and Others (JR113/18)

Transnet Group Capital v Khwela and Others (JR113/18) [2019] ZALCJHB 335 (14 November 2019)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR113/18

Judge

GN Moshoana

The Labour Court held that a voluntary severance agreement did not compromise a pending unfair labour practice dispute, so the council kept jurisdiction.

• Unfair Labour Practice
• Compromise Of Claim
• Condonation
• Arbitration Jurisdiction
• Compromise-of-claim
• Unfair-labour-practice

South African Police Services v Du Preez and Others In Re: Du Preez v South African Police Services (PR157/17;P226/17)

South African Police Services v Du Preez and Others In Re: Du Preez v South African Police Services (PR157/17;P226/17) [2019] ZALCPE 3 (8 March 2019)

Court

Labour Court Port Elizabeth

Case number

PR157/17;P226/17

Judge

GN Moshoana

The court found that Du Preez lacked locus standi to refer the dispute under section 24 of the LRA, as he was not a party to the collective agreement, but merely a beneficiary. Consequently, the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to issue the award, rendering it a nullity. Even if jurisdiction existed, the requirements for an acting allowance under the collective agreement were not met: the appointment was not made by an authorised person, the post was not vacant and funded, and the acting period exceeded the permissible duration. Therefore, the award was legally incorrect and unenforceable. The…

Source excerpt

• Collective Agreement Interpretation
• Locus Standi
• Arbitration Jurisdiction
• Acting Allowance
• Review Of Award

Hospersa obo Tshambi v Department of Health, KwaZulu-Natal (DA1/2015)

Hospersa obo Tshambi v Department of Health, KwaZulu-Natal (DA1/2015) [2016] ZALAC 10; [2016] 7 BLLR 649 (LAC); (2016) 37 (ILJ) 1839 (LAC) (24 March 2016)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

DA1/2015

Judges

Ndlovu, Musi, Sutherland

The Labour Appeal Court held that the arbitrator erred by accepting the appellant's subjective characterisation of the dispute as one about the interpretation or application of a collective agreement under section 24 of the LRA. The true nature of the dispute was an unfair labour practice concerning unfair suspension without pay, as contemplated by section 186(2)(b) of the LRA. The referral was made well outside the prescribed 90-day period, and no condonation was sought. The arbitrator's reliance on the Prescription Act to justify the delay was misplaced, as labour disputes are governed by t…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Suspension
• Collective Agreement Interpretation
• Condonation For Late Referral
• Arbitration Jurisdiction
• Prescription Act Application

Moyo v Commission for Conciliation, Meditation and Arbitration and Others (JR2778/05)

Moyo v Commission for Conciliation, Meditation and Arbitration and Others (JR2778/05) [2016] ZALCJHB 96 (7 March 2016)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR2778/05

Judge

Potgieter

The Labour Court dismissed Thabani Moyo’s application to rescind an October 2013 order, holding that the prior order was properly rescinded and no basis existed for further relief.

• Employment Equity Act
• Unfair Discrimination
• Unfair Dismissal
• Arbitration Jurisdiction
• Rescission Of Order
• Labour-law

Mathibeli v Minister of Labour (JA25/2013)

Mathibeli v Minister of Labour (JA25/2013) [2014] ZALAC 72; [2015] 3 BLLR 267 (LAC); (2015) 36 ILJ 1215 (LAC) (25 November 2014)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA25/2013

Judges

Waglay, Tlaletsi, Sutherland

The Labour Appeal Court held that the appellant was not entitled to the higher salary because the upgrading of his post was never implemented due to lack of ministerial approval and the overriding application of the Occupation Specific Dispensation. The arbitrator's award was unreasonable and irrational, as it was not supported by the evidence and failed to establish that the appellant was the incumbent of a grade 11 post or had any right to promotion or higher pay. The dispute referred was a dispute of right, not interest, but the claim was meritless both in fact and law. The Labour Court's…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Labour Practice
• Promotion
• Public Service Regulations
• Occupation Specific Dispensation
• Arbitration Jurisdiction

Arends and Others v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (PA6/13)

Arends and Others v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (PA6/13) [2014] ZALAC 69; [2015] 1 BLLR 23 (LAC); (2015) 36 ILJ 1200 (LAC) (6 November 2014)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

PA6/13

Judges

Murphy AJA, Waglay JP, Dlodlo AJA

The Labour Appeal Court found that the arbitration proceedings were procedurally irregular because the arbitrator ruled on a jurisdictional point raised for the first time in written submissions without affording the appellants an opportunity to respond. This denied the appellants a fair hearing and constituted a reviewable irregularity under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act, as informed by the constitutional right to fair administrative action. The Court held that both parties contributed to the procedural shortcomings by failing to agree on a proper stated case or pre-arbitration pro…

Source excerpt

• Collective Agreement Interpretation
• Arbitration Jurisdiction
• Unilateral Change To Terms
• Reviewable Irregularity
• Procedural Fairness

B. Langton Construction CC v Quipmore Business Finance (Pty) Ltd and Another (8201/2011)

B. Langton Construction CC v Quipmore Business Finance (Pty) Ltd and Another (8201/2011) [2013] ZAKZPHC 23 (13 February 2013)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

8201/2011

Judge

Stretch

The court held that the arbitrator acted ultra vires by deciding both the jurisdictional question and the merits of the special plea, despite clear authority that an arbitrator cannot determine his own jurisdiction unless specifically empowered by the parties. The arbitration clause did not confer such power, and the arbitrator's award dismissing the applicant's special plea was therefore invalid. The court declared the award a nullity and set it aside in terms of section 33(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965. The court further found that the applicant was entitled to alternative relief…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Jurisdiction
• Setting Aside Arbitral Award
• Acknowledgment Of Debt
• Ultra Vires Award