Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
3 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Labour Law [2025] ZALCJHB 117

Tinstwalo and Others v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (17268/2024)

Tinstwalo and Others v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (17268/2024) [2025] ZALCJHB 117 (10 March 2025)

Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
17268/2024
Judge
L Vukeya

The court found that urgency arose only when the respondent re-advertised the posts on 29 January 2025, not when the applicants initially threatened urgent proceedings. The delay was condoned as the applicants reasonably believed the respondent would not proceed with recruitment. The respondent's undertaking, made by a senior executive, was valid and binding, given in good faith to prevent prejudice while the dispute was pending. The applicants demonstrated a prima facie right to have their dispute resolved by the Bargaining Council without the recruitment process rendering the outcome moot.…

Source excerpt

  • Urgent Interdict
  • Promotion Dispute
  • Undertaking By Employer
  • Bargaining Council Referral
  • Fair Labour Practices
Read case analysis
Labour Law [2018] ZALCCT 41

Schenker South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Robineau and Others (C455/16; C790/16)

Schenker South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Robineau and Others (C455/16; C790/16) [2018] ZALCCT 41; (2019) 40 ILJ 213 (LC); [2019] 4 BLLR 409 (LC) (28 August 2018)

Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Case number
C455/16; C790/16
Judge
Rabkin-Naicker

The Labour Court held that the CCMA was functus officio after referring the dispute to the Bargaining Council under section 147 of the LRA, and its jurisdiction over the matter lapsed. Section 51(4) of the LRA does not operate to reinstate CCMA jurisdiction in such circumstances; it applies only where a dispute is referred to a Bargaining Council at first instance and one or more parties do not fall within its registered scope. The contracts between the parties clearly stipulated that Mozambican law governed the employment relationship, and the locality of the undertaking test was not applica…

Source excerpt

  • Ccma Jurisdiction
  • Bargaining Council Referral
  • Functus Officio
  • Choice Of Law
  • Extra Territorial Jurisdiction
Read case analysis
Labour Law [2011] ZALCJHB 165

Pankana CC t/a R&W Transport Components v Dreyer NO and Others (JR1800/09)

Pankana CC t/a R&W Transport Components v Dreyer NO and Others (JR1800/09) [2011] ZALCJHB 165 (14 September 2011)

Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
JR1800/09
Judge
Cook AJ

The Labour Court found that the CCMA lacked jurisdiction to arbitrate the unfair dismissal dispute because the applicant's business fell within the registered scope of the Motor Industry Bargaining Council (MIBCO). The jurisdictional point, although raised for the first time at review, was not done for tactical advantage and was supported by undisputed facts. The CCMA did not exercise its discretion under section 147(3)(a) of the Labour Relations Act to assume jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is determined objectively, and the absence of a challenge at arbitration did not preclude the applicant fro…

Source excerpt

  • Jurisdiction Of Ccma
  • Bargaining Council Referral
  • Unfair Dismissal
  • Condonation For Late Referral
Read case analysis
Labour Law [1998] ZALC 125

Oosthuizen v C.A.N MINING And Engineering suppliers (J1383/97)

Oosthuizen v C.A.N MINING And Engineering suppliers (J1383/97) [1998] ZALC 125 (7 December 1998)

Court
Labour Court
Case number
J1383/97
Judge
Grogan

The Court found that the applicant was not irrevocably bound to the CCMA arbitration process. The evidence supported that the applicant referred the dispute to the bargaining council under the bona fide impression that the CCMA lacked jurisdiction, whether by express ruling or general uncertainty. The respondent's participation in CCMA arbitration did not constitute a binding agreement under section 141(1), as there was no conscious agreement to arbitrate a matter otherwise reserved for the Labour Court. Sections 191(6) and 141 do not apply where parties fall within the scope of a bargaining…

Source excerpt

  • Unfair Dismissal
  • Jurisdiction Of Ccma
  • Bargaining Council Referral
  • Operational Requirements Dismissal
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.