South Africa Case Law

South African Democratic Teachers Union v MEC for Education, Limpopo Province and Others (4277/2019)

South African Democratic Teachers Union v MEC for Education, Limpopo Province and Others (4277/2019) [2023] ZALMPPHC 32 (15 June 2023)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

4277/2019

Judge

SS Mthimkulu

The High Court dismissed a challenge to salary reductions for CTE educators, finding no reviewable administrative decision and non-compliance with PAJA’s 180-day limit.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Unlawful Administrative Action
• Salary Reduction
• Review Proceedings
• Contractual Employment
• Administrative-law

Maya v DB Thermal (a division of DBT Technologies) (J738/13)

Maya v DB Thermal (a division of DBT Technologies) (J738/13) [2015] ZALCJHB 214 (22 July 2015)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J738/13

Judge

Whitcher

The Labour Court dismissed an application to make a settlement agreement an order of court, finding the respondent had complied and that “reinstatement” meant recognition of service only.

• Settlement Agreement
• Reinstatement
• Section 158 1 C Lra
• Recognition Of Service
• Dismissal
• Contractual Employment

Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality (6010/2008)

Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality (6010/2008) [2010] ZAKZPHC 63 (23 September 2010)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

6010/2008

Judge

Swain

The court dismissed a pension fund’s claim for an adjusted contribution after a member left service, holding the regulations did not permit a lump-sum recovery.

• Statutory Interpretation
• Pension Fund Regulation
• Contractual Employment
• Casus Omissus
• Administrative Discretion
• Statutory-interpretation

Kriel v Legal Aid Board and Others (138/08)

Kriel v Legal Aid Board and Others (138/08) [2009] ZASCA 76; 2010 (2) SA 282 (SCA) ; [2009] 9 BLLR 854 (SCA); [2009] 4 All SA 314 (SCA); (2009) 30 ILJ 1735 (SCA) (1 June 2009)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

138/08

Judges

Mpati, Cachalia, Mhlantla, Leach, Bosielo

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the dismissal of the appellant by the Legal Aid Board did not constitute administrative action as defined by PAJA, but was an exercise of contractual power governed by the Labour Relations Act. The court found that the High Court had jurisdiction to consider the review application, but the appellant failed to establish a cause of action under administrative law. The court reaffirmed the principle that public sector employees are subject to the same labour law protections as private sector employees, and that remedies for unfair dismissal must be sought un…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Administrative Action
• Jurisdiction
• Protected Disclosure
• Contractual Employment
• Review Proceedings