South Africa Case Law

Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (SOC) Ltd v CEPPWAWU obo Members and Others (C495/2019)

Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (SOC) Ltd v CEPPWAWU obo Members and Others (C495/2019) [2022] ZALCCT 55 (25 October 2022)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C495/2019

Judge

Lagrange

The Labour Court found that the arbitrator's conclusion that PetroSA was contractually obliged to pay the STIP bonus for the 2017/2018 financial year was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. The STIP policy was valid only for five years and expired on 31 March 2017, with no automatic continuation or replacement. Clause 16 of the employment contracts did not create an ongoing entitlement to the STIP bonus after the scheme's expiry. However, the employer's unilateral decision to pay a flat gratuity instead of consulting with unions over the change in bonus structure was procedurally…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Labour Practice
• Collective Agreement Interpretation
• Performance Bonus
• Procedural Fairness
• Employment Contracts
• Consultation Requirement

Central African Road Services v The Minister of Transport and Another (62873/2014)

Central African Road Services v The Minister of Transport and Another (62873/2014) [2019] ZAGPPHC 56 (28 February 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

62873/2014

Judge

R G Tolmay

The court found that the Minister complied with the statutory requirement to consult the Board prior to promulgating the 2014 Regulations. The consultation process, which included meetings, memoranda, and stakeholder engagement, afforded the Board an opportunity to convey its views, and those views were given fair consideration. The fact that the Minister met with Board emissaries rather than the full Board was not fatal, as the process reflected significant interaction and genuine consultation. Regarding Regulations 7(5) and (6), the court held that section 51(a) does not restrict the Minist…

Source excerpt

• Consultation Requirement
• Ultra Vires Regulation
• Void For Vagueness
• Permit Fee Structure
• Constitutional Review

Chemical, Energy, Paper, Printing, Wood and Allied Workers Union v Melani and Another (J2151/15)

Chemical, Energy, Paper, Printing, Wood and Allied Workers Union v Melani and Another (J2151/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 163 (4 April 2017)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2151/15

Judge

Van Niekerk

Leave to appeal was refused in a labour dispute about a union’s authority to discipline a member, with costs. The court held the union’s code required consultation and proper mandate.

• Union Constitution Interpretation
• Disciplinary Procedure
• Delegation Of Authority
• Consultation Requirement
• Trade-union-law
• Disciplinary-procedure

Bam v Alfred Nzo Development Agency (Pty) Ltd and Others (CA&R6/15)

Bam v Alfred Nzo Development Agency (Pty) Ltd and Others (CA&R6/15) [2015] ZAECMHC 58 (11 June 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

CA&R6/15

Judges

Pickering, Chetty, Dawood

Appeal dismissed: the CEO contract was not validly extended for two years, and the appellant’s later challenge to a six-month extension failed.

• Contract Extension
• Service Level Agreement
• Board Resolutions
• Consultation Requirement
• Companies Act Section 74
• Contract-extension

Freedom Under Law v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (26912/12)

Freedom Under Law v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (26912/12) [2013] ZAGPPHC 271; [2013] 4 All SA 657 (GNP); 2014 (1) SA 254 (GNP); 2014 (1) SACR 111 (GNP) (23 September 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

26912/12

Judge

Murphy

The court found that the decisions to withdraw criminal and disciplinary charges against Lieutenant-General Richard Mdluli were unlawful, irrational, and invalid. The Special Director of Public Prosecutions withdrew charges without the required concurrence of the relevant DPP, violating section 24(3) of the NPA Act. The process was arbitrary, ignored compelling evidence, and failed to consult relevant stakeholders, breaching the requirements of legality and rationality. The withdrawal of disciplinary charges and reinstatement of Mdluli were made under dictation from unauthorised persons, amou…

Source excerpt

• Prosecutorial Discretion
• Withdrawal Of Charges
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Rule Of Law Review
• Public Interest Standing
• Consultation Requirement

Multichoice Africa (Pty) Ltd v National Consumer Commission (NCT/3220/2011/101 (1)(a)(P))

Multichoice Africa (Pty) Ltd v National Consumer Commission (NCT/3220/2011/101 (1)(a)(P)) [2012] ZANCT 4 (23 March 2012)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/3220/2011/101 (1)(a)(P)

Judges

J Maseko, D Terblanche, N Sephoti

The Tribunal cancelled a compliance notice after finding the National Consumer Commission failed to consult ICASA as required before issuing it.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Compliance Notice
• Consultation Requirement
• Regulated Entity
• Jurisdiction Of Tribunal
• Consumer-protection-act

Lanzerac Manor (Pty) Ltd. v De Vries and Others (689/93)

Lanzerac Manor (Pty) Ltd. v De Vries and Others (689/93) [1995] ZASCA 117; [1995] 12 BLLR 1 (AD); (1996) 17 ILJ 11 (A) (28 September 1995)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

689/93

Judges

Joubert, Hefer, F H Grosskopf, Van Coller, Scott

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the retrenchment of the respondents constituted an unfair labour practice due to the appellant's failure to consult with the affected employees prior to their dismissal. The Court found that, regardless of the employees' probationary status, they were entitled to a fair procedure, which includes an opportunity to make representations regarding their selection for retrenchment. The appellant's reliance on the so-called 'Halcyon condition' was rejected, as it was not properly pleaded or substantiated in evidence. The Court emphasised that consultation is a…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Retrenchment Procedure
• Consultation Requirement
• Probationary Employment