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
Fleet Africa (Pty) Limited v Polokwane Local Municipality (720/2022) [2023] ZASCA 142 (30 October 2023)
The SCA held that the Limpopo High Court had jurisdiction, the SLA was binding, and the Municipality’s arbitration defences based on tender irregularity lacked merit.
Solomons v Phokela NO and Others (JR99/2021) [2021] ZALCJHB 192 (2 August 2021)
The Labour Court held that a rescission application is not competent following a dismissal ruling under section 138(5)(a) of the LRA, as such a ruling is not an arbitration award or ruling but an exercise of statutory function. The CCMA commissioner lacked jurisdiction to entertain and refuse the rescission application, rendering the rescission ruling a nullity. The review application was dismissed as moot, but the Court declared the original dismissal ruling irrational, invalid, and ineffective in law due to procedural irrationality—specifically, the failure to consider the parties' agreemen…
Source excerpt
Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Another v Dyasi and Another (P 71/2020) [2020] ZALCJHB 238 (26 September 2020)
The Labour Court confirmed a CCMA contempt finding against two respondents for failing to comply with subpoenas and imposed suspended three-month imprisonment.
Transnet Limited v Ed-U-College (Port Elizabeth) (NPC) and Another (CA227/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 28 (27 March 2018)
The appeal was upheld because the respondent failed to establish that injustice would result if execution of the costs orders was not stayed. The arbitration proceedings were limited to determining the amount owed by the respondent to the appellant and did not provide for a counterclaim or a finding that the appellant was indebted to the respondent. Even if the arbitrator found that nothing was owed, the respondent would remain liable for the costs orders. The court a quo misdirected itself by finding that the causae of the costs orders were in dispute and by linking the costs orders to the o…
Source excerpt
Steve Biko Foundation v Frese NO and Another (A5008/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 446 (7 March 2018)
Appeal upheld: the court held that an interlocutory adjudicator’s award could not be made an order of court before arbitration was finalised.
Edu-U-College (Port Elizabeth) v Transnet Limited and Another (135/2013, 212/2013, 62/2014, 1729/2011, 4397/2015) [2017] ZAECPEHC 18 (23 February 2017)
The High Court stayed execution of taxed cost orders pending arbitration, finding the applicant’s alleged claim was unliquidated but that justice required a stay.
Kouga Municipality v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (P524/10) [2011] ZALCPE 19; (2012) 33 ILJ 1857 (LC) (2 November 2011)
The Labour Court held that the SALGBC had jurisdiction to arbitrate a dispute involving a section 57 municipal manager, dismissing the municipality’s review application.
Bargaining Council for the Clothing Manufacturing Industry and Another v Prinsloo (C705/2006) [2007] ZALCCT 17 (27 March 2007)
The Labour Court found that Mr Prinsloo's conduct during the arbitration proceedings, including insulting and belittling the Commissioner, improperly anticipating the award, and making baseless accusations of bias and disrespect, constituted contempt of the Commission under Section 142(8)(g), (h), and (i) of the Labour Relations Act. The Court confirmed that Commissioners are empowered to make findings of contempt, but only the Labour Court may confirm and sanction such findings. The Court rejected the respondent's arguments that his conduct was merely a result of frustration or misunderstand…
Source excerpt
Bargaining Council for the Clothing Manufacturing Industry and Another v Prinsloo (C 705/2006) [2007] ZALC 199; [2007] 9 BLLR 825 (LC); (2007) 28 ILJ 1754 (LC) (27 March 2007)
The Labour Court found that Mr Prinsloo's conduct during the arbitration proceedings, including disparaging and belittling remarks towards the Commissioner, improper anticipation of the award, and disrespectful interruptions, constituted contempt under Section 142(8)(g), (h), and (i) of the Labour Relations Act. The Court confirmed that Commissioners are empowered to make findings of contempt but not to impose punishment, which is reserved for the Labour Court. The Court rejected the respondent's arguments regarding bias and misunderstanding, finding no valid grounds for mitigation except for…
Source excerpt
Explore more
