South Africa Case Law

Nkosi v MEC of Department of Helath Limpopo Province and Another (J1677/23)

Nkosi v MEC of Department of Helath Limpopo Province and Another (J1677/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 334 (29 July 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1677/23

Judge

Mafa-Chali

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a clear right to the salary claimed, as he did not provide evidence of rendering services during the relevant periods and was absent without leave according to attendance registers. The deductions and withholding of salary were made in accordance with departmental circulars and statutory provisions governing unpaid leave and absence. The applicant did not exhaust internal remedies, such as lodging a grievance regarding salary deductions, and alternative remedies under the Labour Relations Act and Basic Conditions of Employment Act were…

Source excerpt

• Mandamus
• Declaratory Order
• Salary Withholding
• Unpaid Leave
• Disciplinary Procedure
• Audi Alteram Partem

G.D v G.J.D and Others (2427/2020)

G.D v G.J.D and Others (2427/2020) [2025] ZAECQBHC 22 (29 July 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

2427/2020

Judge

Gqamana

The High Court set aside an urgent order suspending business rescue, holding that affected employees and creditors were not joined and would be prejudiced.

• Business Rescue
• Non Joinder
• Creditors Rights
• Employee Protection
• Urgent Application
• Audi Alteram Partem

Francois Jurie Nicolaas Harman v Pieter Hendrik Strydom (285/2024)

Francois Jurie Nicolaas Harman v Pieter Hendrik Strydom (285/2024) [2025] ZASCA 108 (18 July 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

285/2024

Judges

Mothle, Weiner, Smith, Vally, Norman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's right to be heard was not violated by the urgent ex parte order, as multiple procedural avenues existed for him to challenge or reconsider the order, none of which he pursued. The interim orders requiring disclosure of the identities of contributors to the defamatory posts were not overbroad, as the appellant failed to demonstrate any legal or practical inability to comply, nor did he substantiate his reliance on POPIA or section 14 of the Constitution. The life-threatening nature of the posts justified the initial ex parte relief, and ind…

Source excerpt

• Audi Alteram Partem
• Urgent Ex Parte Application
• Interdict
• Defamation On Social Media
• Section 34 Right Of Access To Court

Special Investigating Unit v Solidarity obo Walser (JR1305/22)

Special Investigating Unit v Solidarity obo Walser (JR1305/22) [2025] ZALCJHB 310 (13 July 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1305/22

Judge

H Schensema

The Court found that the applicant failed to provide a compelling and comprehensive explanation for the delay in filing the review application, particularly for the period between 25 May 2022 and 6 June 2022. The reasons advanced, including miscommunication and email issues, were unsupported by evidence and did not cover the entire period of delay. The applicant’s inability to prepare for the arbitration was self-created, as it had ample opportunity to consult with its witnesses and legal representatives. The Commissioner’s refusal to grant a further postponement and to allow witnesses to rem…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Unfair Labour Practice
• Postponement Principles
• Audi Alteram Partem

Mokoena v West Rand District Municipality and Others (J599/22)

Mokoena v West Rand District Municipality and Others (J599/22) [2025] ZALCJHB 320 (8 July 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J599/22

Judge

M Makhura

The court held that the 60-day period in section 57(2)(a)(i) of the Municipal Systems Act refers to working days, not calendar days, and excludes weekends and public holidays. The applicant was required to work Monday to Friday, and there was no agreement to work on public holidays. Counting 60 working days from 1 December 2016, the last day for signing the performance agreement was 28 February 2017. The applicant signed the agreement on 27 February 2017, within the prescribed period. Therefore, the jurisdictional requirements for the contract to lapse were not met, and the respondent's relia…

Source excerpt

• Fixed Term Contracts
• Unlawful Dismissal
• Interpretation Of Statutes
• Performance Agreements
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Remuneration Claim

Department of Infrastructure Development v KAWU obo Delihlazo and Others (JR331/22)

Department of Infrastructure Development v KAWU obo Delihlazo and Others (JR331/22) [2025] ZALCJHB 316 (30 June 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR331/22

Judge

S Swartz

The Labour Court granted review, condonation and revival, and substituted an award with a finding that the employee’s dismissal was fair.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Condonation
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Inconsistency Of Sanction
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Substitution Of Award

Jacobus Nicolaas van Coller t/a JN van Coller Boerdery v The Member of the Executive Council for Economic, Small Business Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs, Free State and Another (5750/2024)

Jacobus Nicolaas van Coller t/a JN van Coller Boerdery v The Member of the Executive Council for Economic, Small Business Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs, Free State and Another (5750/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 191 (26 June 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5750/2024

Judges

Mhlambi, Ntanga

The court found that the respondents failed to afford the applicant an opportunity to make representations regarding the identity of the applicant in the s 24G application, resulting in procedural unfairness. The conflicting information in the application forms created ambiguity as to whether the applicant was an individual or a firm, and the respondents did not resolve this by inviting further representations. The Constitution and PAJA require administrative action to be procedurally fair, and the respondents' failure to do so rendered their decision reviewable. The court declined to substit…

Source excerpt

• National Environmental Management Act
• Administrative Fines
• Procedural Fairness
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Judicial Review
• Audi Alteram Partem

Sethibelo v General Public Service Sector Bargaining Council and Others (JR 237/21)

Sethibelo v General Public Service Sector Bargaining Council and Others (JR 237/21) [2025] ZALCJHB 250 (26 June 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR 237/21

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

The court found that the applicant's dismissal was procedurally unfair due to significant defects in the disciplinary process. The employer failed to formally revoke the applicant's approved leave, and the chairperson of the disciplinary hearing proceeded on the incorrect assumption that no leave had been granted. The evidence showed that the applicant was on authorised leave and that there was an agreement to postpone the hearing, which was not disputed. The Arbitrator failed to consider these facts and thus erred in finding the dismissal procedurally fair. However, the court upheld the Arbi…

Source excerpt

• Procedural Fairness
• Protected Disclosure Act
• Disciplinary Hearing
• Compensation For Unfair Dismissal
• Contractual Rights
• Audi Alteram Partem

Koko v Special Investigative Unit and Others (2023/031211)

Koko v Special Investigative Unit and Others (2023/031211) [2025] ZAGPPHC 715 (18 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023/031211

Judge

de Vos

The Court found that Mr Koko failed to establish a direct and substantial legal interest in the subject matter or order of the review proceedings. The order and judgment made no reference to him, imposed no obligations, and did not affect his rights. The authorities cited, including NDPP v Zuma, B Xulu & Partners, Central Energy Fund, Siyangena Technologies, Deputy Public Protector, and Lebea, confirm that reputational harm or adverse allegations in the reasoning do not suffice for intervention. The order operates in rem, binding all parties, but does not entitle uncited parties to intervene…

Source excerpt

• Intervention Application
• Direct And Substantial Interest
• Order In Rem
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Reputational Harm
• Costs Order

Firstrand Bank Limited v Vellem (M404/2022)

Firstrand Bank Limited v Vellem (M404/2022) [2025] ZANWHC 100 (12 June 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M404/2022

Judge

Oosthuizen-Senekal

The High Court rescinded a default judgment, finding the wrong entity had been cited and served, and granted Firstrand Bank leave to defend.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• Defective Service
• Misidentification Of Party
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Costs In The Cause