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
Ramorakane v City Lodge Hotel Group Limited and Others (C332/2020) [2023] ZALCCT 14 (11 April 2023)
The Labour Court reviewed and set aside a CCMA rescission ruling, finding the commissioner used the wrong test and that the employee was not in wilful default.
Super Group Trading (PTY) Ltd t/a, Supergroup Dealerships t/a, Orbit Commercial Vehicles Cape Town v NUMSA and Others (C06/2021) [2022] ZALCCT 43 (22 July 2022)
The Labour Court reviewed and set aside a postponement ruling in an unfair dismissal arbitration, finding it unreasonable and substituting dismissal of the dispute.
G4S Cash Solutions (Pty) Ltd v SATAWU obo Sibeko and Others (JR1374/16) [2019] ZALCJHB 100 (14 May 2019)
The Labour Court granted condonation but dismissed G4S’s review of an arbitration award finding Sibeko’s dismissal substantively unfair.
Ntombela and Others v United National Transport Union and Others (D 1724 / 2018) [2018] ZALCD 23; (2019) 40 ILJ 874 (LC) (6 November 2018)
The Labour Court dismissed the application for urgent relief, finding that the applicants failed to establish proper urgency or exceptional circumstances justifying intervention in incomplete CCMA arbitration proceedings. The urgency was self-created, as the applicants delayed bringing the application and had already secured a postponement. The applicants could obtain substantial redress in due course by participating in the arbitration and, if dissatisfied, pursuing review thereafter. The commissioner was not functus officio, as his initial jurisdictional ruling was provisional and subject t…
Source excerpt
Dungelo v Ergo Mining (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR1579/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 166 (3 May 2018)
The Labour Court found that the CCMA Commissioner committed a fundamental error of law by believing he lacked authority to postpone the arbitration due to a prior decision, despite the applicant's representative being unexpectedly absent. Both parties accepted the Commissioner's erroneous stance, leading to the withdrawal agreement. The agreement was thus founded on a common mistake, as both parties operated under the incorrect assumption regarding the Commissioner's powers. Applying the principle from Dickenson Motors, the Court held that such an agreement must be set aside. The matter was o…
Source excerpt
Explore more
