Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Labour Law [2025] ZALCJHB 141

Innovative Staffing Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Employment and Labour and Others (JR2749/22)

Innovative Staffing Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Employment and Labour and Others (JR2749/22) [2025] ZALCJHB 141 (3 April 2025)

Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
JR2749/22
Judge
Daniels

The court found that the registrar and deputy registrar followed a rational and fair process in determining the representativeness of the parties to the Bargaining Council, as required by the Labour Relations Act. The certificate issued was a valid determination under section 49, and the deputy registrar was lawfully empowered to act under section 108(2) of the LRA. The applicant's arguments regarding the wrong statutory section, discrepancies in figures, lack of independent data sources, and absence of a representation process for non-parties were rejected as lacking substance or statutory b…

Source excerpt

  • Collective Bargaining
  • Extension Of Collective Agreements
  • Representativeness Determination
  • Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
  • Majoritarianism
  • Delegation Of Statutory Functions
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2019] ZAECPEHC 36

Tonise v Director General for the Department of Labour; Kritzinger v Director General for the Department of Labour (4353/16; 3250/17)

Tonise v Director General for the Department of Labour; Kritzinger v Director General for the Department of Labour (4353/16; 3250/17) [2019] ZAECPEHC 36 (11 June 2019)

Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Case number
4353/16; 3250/17
Judge
D Van Zyl

The court found that the applicants failed to establish the requirements for contempt of court against the Director-General personally. The respondent had delegated the relevant statutory functions and did not have personal knowledge of the orders or the failure to comply. There was no evidence of wilful or mala fide non-compliance by the respondent. The applicants did not allege or prove that the respondent personally defied the orders, and their case was based on holding the Director-General responsible for the failures of other functionaries. The late filing of answering affidavits was con…

Source excerpt

  • Contempt Of Court
  • Compensation For Occupational Injuries
  • Delegation Of Statutory Functions
  • Service Of Court Orders
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.