South Africa Case Law

Transnet Port Terminals v UNTU obo Nel and Erasmus and Others (C271/2022; 272/2022; 412/2022)

Transnet Port Terminals v UNTU obo Nel and Erasmus and Others (C271/2022; 272/2022; 412/2022) [2025] ZALCCT 47 (7 July 2025)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C271/2022; C272/2022; C412/2022

Judge

C de Kock

The Labour Court refused to consolidate three related review applications, holding that each commissioner’s award must be reviewed on its own evidence and reasoning.

• Consolidation Of Proceedings
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Expediency And Justice
• Labour Court Rules
• Unfair Dismissal
• Consolidation-of-proceedings

Strydom N.O v Jennings and Another (66445/2020)

Strydom N.O v Jennings and Another (66445/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 636 (19 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

66445/2020

Judge

Labuschagne

The High Court held that Dr Jennings’ death ended the marriage and joint ownership of the properties, dismissed consolidation with the divorce case, and made the draft order an order of court.

• Termination Of Joint Ownership
• Actio Communi Dividundo
• Administration Of Estates Act
• Consolidation Of Proceedings
• Termination-of-joint-ownership
• Actio-communi-dividundo

SAICA Enterprise Development (Pty) Ltd v Brown and Another (P73/21)

SAICA Enterprise Development (Pty) Ltd v Brown and Another (P73/21) [2023] ZALCPE 16 (10 August 2023)

Court

Labour Court Port Elizabeth

Case number

P73/21

Judge

Lallie

The Labour Court refused to consolidate two unfair retrenchment claims, finding that while consolidation would be efficient, it would not be just because of prejudice to the first respondent.

• Consolidation Of Proceedings
• Unfair Dismissal
• Retrenchment
• Prejudice In Litigation
• Consolidation-of-proceedings
• Unfair-dismissal

Absa Bank Limited v Erasmus (482/2022)

Absa Bank Limited v Erasmus (482/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 309 (21 October 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

482/2022

Judge

Mpama

The court found that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of showing that the respondent would not be prejudiced by the proposed amendments. The amendments sought would allow the applicant to dispose of the vehicles, which are the subject of the main action still pending before the court, potentially extinguishing the dispute without proper ventilation. The application was not shown to be in the interests of justice or made in good faith, and the respondent's objections were not adequately addressed. The consolidation of proceedings under one case number did not affect the substance of…

Source excerpt

• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Rule 28 Uniform Rules
• Prejudice In Amendment
• Consolidation Of Proceedings

Lordship Trading Enterprises (Pty) Ltd b Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (3308/18)

Lordship Trading Enterprises (Pty) Ltd b Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (3308/18) [2020] ZAGPPHC 656 (20 November 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

3308/18

Judge

Mabuse

The court found that Lordship Trading failed to demonstrate a genuine and real dispute of fact between the parties that could not be resolved on affidavit. The alleged disputes regarding sales figures, licensing arrangements, and witness credibility were internal to Lordship Trading's own evidence and did not constitute disputes between the parties. The opposition proceedings were not formally before the court, nor classified as commercial, and the application for consolidation did not comply with procedural requirements. The court held that its inherent jurisdiction under section 173 of the…

Source excerpt

• Trade Mark Opposition
• Referral To Trial
• Consolidation Of Proceedings
• Lis Pendens
• Cross Examination
• Inherent Jurisdiction

SACCAWU and Others v Southern Sun Hotel Interests (Pty) Ltd (JS1162/14; J2361/14)

SACCAWU and Others v Southern Sun Hotel Interests (Pty) Ltd (JS1162/14; J2361/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 283 (3 July 2016)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS1162/14; J2361/14

Judge

Whitcher

The Labour Court held that section 189A(18) of the LRA expressly prohibits the consolidation or co-hearing of procedural unfairness claims brought under section 189A(13) with substantive unfairness claims referred under section 191(5)(b)(ii). The statutory scheme requires these claims to be dealt with separately: procedural unfairness by motion proceedings and substantive unfairness by trial. The court found that the applicants' attempt to consolidate or co-hear the claims was impermissible, as the legislature intended for procedural issues to be addressed expeditiously and independently, not…

Source excerpt

• Retrenchment Procedure
• Section 189a Lra
• Consolidation Of Proceedings
• Procedural Vs Substantive Fairness
• Compensation For Unfair Dismissal

SACCAWU and Others v Southern Sun Hotel interests (Pty) Ltd (JS1162/14, J2361/14)

SACCAWU and Others v Southern Sun Hotel interests (Pty) Ltd (JS1162/14, J2361/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 235; [2017] 1 BLLR 90 (LC); (2017) 38 ILJ 463 (LC) (3 July 2016)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS1162/14 & J2361-14

Judge

Whitcher

The court held that section 189A(18) of the LRA clearly prohibits the consolidation or co-hearing of procedural fairness claims brought under section 189A(13) with substantive fairness claims referred under section 191(5)(b)(ii). The statutory scheme requires that procedural and substantive unfairness in retrenchment disputes be adjudicated separately, with procedural claims determined by motion proceedings and substantive claims by trial. The court found that the applicants' attempt to consolidate the two processes was impermissible, as the LRA's structure and wording do not allow for such c…

Source excerpt

• Retrenchment Procedure
• Consolidation Of Proceedings
• Section 189a Lra
• Procedural Vs Substantive Fairness

Qwelane v Minister of Justice And Constitutional development and Another (36314/13)

Qwelane v Minister of Justice And Constitutional development and Another (36314/13) [2014] ZAGPJHC 334; 2015 (2) SA 493 (GJ) (21 November 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

36314/13

Judge

FHD Van Oosten

The High Court is empowered under section 173 of the Constitution to regulate its own process and, in the absence of a specific procedural rule, may order consolidation of equality court and constitutional challenge proceedings for hearing before a single judge in dual capacity. Consolidation is justified by considerations of convenience, efficiency, and fairness, and does not create a 'super court' or compromise the distinct statutory characteristics of each proceeding. The rule of practice established by the Constitutional Court requires that all issues be resolved before the constitutional…

Source excerpt

• Consolidation Of Proceedings
• Equality Court Jurisdiction
• Constitutional Challenge
• Freedom Of Expression
• Hate Speech
• Court Inherent Powers

Piner v South African Breweries Ltd (C321/02, C494/01 & C285/01)

Piner v South African Breweries Ltd (C321/02, C494/01 & C285/01) [2002] ZALC 36; (2002) 23 ILJ 1446 (LC) (17 April 2002)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

C321/02

Judge

Waglay

The court found that although the applicant intended to lead the same evidence in both actions, the claims against SAB and MLB were based on different statutes—the Employment Equity Act and the Labour Relations Act, respectively. The questions of law and fact in each action were not substantially the same, and the respondents were not related to each other's actions. Therefore, consolidation would not be expedient, just, or equitable, and would not serve the interests of justice. The application for consolidation was refused.

Source excerpt

• Consolidation Of Proceedings
• Unfair Dismissal
• Unfair Discrimination
• Employment Equity Act
• Labour Relations Act

Independent Development Trust v Commmission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (P314/2000)

Independent Development Trust v Commmission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration (P314/2000) [2000] ZALC 80 (12 August 2000)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

P314/2000

Judge

Revelas

Labour Court review of CCMA awards set aside for lack of jurisdiction after late referrals had been dismissed and no fresh referrals were made.

• Jurisdiction Of Ccma
• Condonation Of Late Referral
• Arbitration Award Rescission
• Consolidation Of Proceedings
• Ccma-jurisdiction
• Late-referral-condonation