Caydavul and Another v Kamal Cape Town Iron and Steel Co (Pty) Ltd (JS619/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 223 (9 June 2025)
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
JS619/23
Judge
Daniels
The plaintiffs remained employed by the defendant until their dismissal on 12 December 2023. The lay-off period was not lawfully extended by agreement, and the defendant conceded that no such agreement existed. The plaintiffs tendered their services throughout the relevant period, except during the business rescue period when they were paid. The defendant's argument that the second plaintiff's entitlement to remuneration was affected by the lapse of his work permit was rejected, as the employment contract was not rendered void and the defendant continued to treat him as an employee. The plain…
Ntsala v Rustenburg Local Municipality and Another (M124/20) [2021] ZANWHC 48 (20 April 2021)
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Case number
M124/20
Judge
A.M. Mtembu
The High Court referred an opposed motion to trial because the parties had a material dispute of fact about timesheet assessment and whether any debt was due.
Opperman v Minister of Defence And Military Veterans (6600/13) [2014] ZAGPPHC 105 (12 March 2014)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
6600/13
Judge
Malindi
The court found that the applicant's claim was premature as he had not exhausted the internal grievance procedures prescribed by departmental regulations. The regulations clearly required that any grievance relating to promotion, placement, or service benefits, including remuneration, must first be addressed through internal remedies before judicial intervention. The applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying exemption from this requirement. The court held that, in the absence of a constitutional challenge to the regulations, the applicant could not bypass the prescr…
Moscak v N Goodwin Design (Pty) Ltd. (329/91) [1993] ZASCA 179 (25 November 1993)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
329/91
Judges
Botha, Goldstone, Krieger
The Appellate Division dismissed an appeal over the value of interior design and fit-out work, upholding the trial court’s factual findings and deductions for remedial work.