Sibiya v Minister of Police and Others (5203/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 135 (20 February 2015)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
5203/2015
Judge
Matojane
The court found that the Third Respondent had no lawful grounds or power to suspend the Applicant. The suspension was effected without reference to any applicable statutory provision, and the regulations relied upon by the Third Respondent did not govern the Applicant's position within the DPCI. The court held that the decision was arbitrary, taken in bad faith, and not rationally connected to its stated purpose. Furthermore, the High Court has jurisdiction to declare conduct unlawful and invalid where the principle of legality is implicated, regardless of the employment context. The suspensi…
Kutuma and Others v Limpopo Legislature (JS886/09) [2014] ZALCJHB 357 (15 September 2014)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
JS886/09
Judge
Lagrange
The Labour Court held that the applicants’ dismissals were fair because they had reached the normal retirement age under the applicable conditions of service.
Gibbs and Others v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (234/2008) [2009] ZASCA 73; [2009] 4 All SA 109 (SCA) (1 June 2009)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
234/2008
Judges
NAVSA, BRAND, HURT, GRIESEL, BOSIELO
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that there is no statutory or legal foundation for the continued payment of merit awards to magistrates. The relevant legislative framework, including the Magistrates Act and subsequent regulations, does not provide for such awards, and the President has not made provision for them by notice in the Gazette. The principle of legality, as a constitutional imperative, precludes the exercise of public power in the absence of lawful authority. The system of merit awards historically applied to administrative tasks that magistrates no longer perform, and its continu…
South African Broadcasting Corporation v Coop and Others (570/2004) [2005] ZASCA 118; [2006] 1 All SA 333 (SCA); 2006 (2) SA 217 (SCA); (2006) 27 ILJ 502 (SCA) (30 November 2005)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
570/2004
Judges
Navsa, Mthiyane, Brand, Van Heerden, Cachalia
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the plaintiffs reasonably relied on representations and conduct by senior SABC management, including the CEO and Group Head of HR, that resigning to withdraw their full pension value was a legitimate mechanism and that they would be treated as retirees entitled to post-retirement benefits. The SABC's budgeting, payment of subsidies, and official correspondence reinforced this impression. Although the plaintiffs failed to prove actual authority from Exco or the Board, the SABC, through its conduct and representations, created ostensible authority and is e…
South African Democratic Teachers' Union (SADTU) v Minister of Education and Others (J5396/00) [2001] ZALC 144; (2001) 22 ILJ 2325 (LC) (12 September 2001)
Court
Labour Court
Case number
J5396/00
Judge
A A Landman
The Labour Court set aside education strike regulations, holding that they imposed new employment conditions and had to be negotiated through the ELRC first.
