South Africa Case Law

HeroTel (Pty) Ltd v Moses and Others (CA05/2024)

HeroTel (Pty) Ltd v Moses and Others (CA05/2024) [2025] ZALAC 42 (10 July 2025)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

CA05/2024

Judges

Savage, Waglay, Musi

The court found that the rationale for retrenchment advanced by Fusion was misleading and did not reflect the true reason for the dismissals. The evidence showed that Fusion transferred key business units and revenue streams to the appellant, creating a self-induced financial crisis. The failure to disclose audited financial statements and other financial information undermined the consultation process and prevented the affected employees from challenging the rationale or proposing alternatives. The selection criteria were not agreed upon, and no objective evidence supported their fairness. T…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Retrenchment
• Operational Requirements
• Selection Criteria
• Consultation Process
• Disclosure Of Information

S v Zuma and Another (Reasons) (CCD30/2018)

S v Zuma and Another (Reasons) (CCD30/2018) [2024] ZAKZPHC 80 (11 September 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

CCD30/2018

Judge

Chili

The High Court gave reasons for refusing Jacob Zuma’s bid to remove prosecutor Billy Downer, holding the grounds were already rejected and no fair-trial breach was shown.

• Removal Of Prosecutor
• Abuse Of Process
• Fair Trial Rights
• Private Prosecution
• Disclosure Of Information
• Removal-of-prosecutor

South African Municipal Workers Union Obo Madlala and Others v UGU South Coast Tourism (Pty) Ltd (D 530/2020)

South African Municipal Workers Union Obo Madlala and Others v UGU South Coast Tourism (Pty) Ltd (D 530/2020) [2023] ZALCD 11 (14 June 2023)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D 530/2020

Judge

Prinsloo

The Labour Court held that the retrenchment was not procedurally unfair because SAMWU derailed the section 189 consultation and withdrew from meaningful engagement.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Retrenchment
• Procedural Fairness
• Consultation Process
• Disclosure Of Information
• Section 189 Lra

Veerasamy and Another v Calgro M3 Development Ltd (JS505/22)

Veerasamy and Another v Calgro M3 Development Ltd (JS505/22) [2022] ZALCJHB 295 (24 October 2022)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS505/22

Judge

Nkutha-Nkontwana

The court found that the applicants had already been retrenched when they sought relief, making interdictory relief inappropriate as it is not a remedy for past violations. The applicants had received the information they requested and had withdrawn from the consultation process, which led to their retrenchment. Any issues regarding non-disclosure could be addressed in proceedings challenging the fairness of the retrenchment. The court concluded that there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different decision, and therefore, leave to appeal must be dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Retrenchment
• Interdictory Relief
• Reinstatement
• Condonation
• Disclosure Of Information

National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa and Others v SGB Cape (JS779/18)

National Union of Metal Workers of South Africa and Others v SGB Cape (JS779/18) [2021] ZALCJHB 438 (8 November 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS779/18

Judge

Prinsloo

The court found that the applicants failed to establish that their dismissal was unfair. The respondent provided relevant financial information—the management accounts for the Secunda branch—which was sufficient for consultation. The insistence by NUMSA on audited financial statements for the entire group was unreasonable, as such documents were irrelevant to the branch-specific retrenchment and confidential. NUMSA refused to participate in further consultations unless its demand was met, despite being aware of the statutory remedy under section 16 of the LRA to obtain information, which it d…

Source excerpt

• Retrenchment Procedure
• Consultation Requirements
• Disclosure Of Information
• Selection Criteria
• Section 189 Lra
• Costs Award

National Education Health and Allied Workers Union v Minister for Trade, Industry and Competition and Another (J587/2021)

National Education Health and Allied Workers Union v Minister for Trade, Industry and Competition and Another (J587/2021) [2021] ZALCJHB 98; (2021) 42 ILJ 1992 (LC) (4 June 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J587/2021

Judge

Van Niekerk

The Labour Court held a section 189A(13) retrenchment challenge was properly brought during ongoing consultation, but dismissed it for lack of proven procedural unfairness.

• Retrenchment Procedure
• Section 189a Application
• Consultation Process
• Collective Agreement Interpretation
• Disclosure Of Information
• Costs Award

Communication Workers Union v Mobile Telephone Networks South Africa (MTN SA) (J464/20)

Communication Workers Union v Mobile Telephone Networks South Africa (MTN SA) (J464/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 170 (1 June 2020)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J464/20

Judge

Prinsloo

The Labour Court dismissed the union’s urgent bid to stop MTN’s store transformation, holding that section 197 did not give a general right to consultation or information.

• Section 197 Transfer
• Interim Interdict
• Consultation Rights
• Disclosure Of Information
• Section-197-transfer
• Interim-interdict

Food and Allied Workers Union (FAWU) v South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd (SAB) and Another (J435/20)

Food and Allied Workers Union (FAWU) v South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd (SAB) and Another (J435/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 92; (2020) 41 ILJ 2652 (LC) (28 May 2020)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J435/20

Judge

G N Moshoana

The court held that the use of Zoom for section 189A consultations during the Covid-19 lockdown was not procedurally unfair, as the Labour Relations Act does not prescribe the form of consultation and the health and safety context justified remote meetings. The employer complied with statutory requirements for disclosure and consultation, including the proposed selection criteria and organogram. The applicant's refusal to participate further in the process was self-serving and not attributable to any procedural lapse by the employer. The court found no procedural irregularity in the employer'…

Source excerpt

• Section 189a Consultation
• Procedural Fairness
• Retrenchment
• Video Conferencing
• Disclosure Of Information

Nampak Glass (Pty) Limited v Vodacom (Pty) Limited and Others (2814/2018)

Nampak Glass (Pty) Limited v Vodacom (Pty) Limited and Others (2814/2018) [2018] ZAGPJHC 481; 2019 (1) SA 257 (GJ) (31 January 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2814/2018

Judge

David Unterhalter

The court held that the common law position, as previously articulated in House of Jewels, is outdated and inconsistent with constitutional imperatives. The right of access to courts requires that procedures exist to enable injured parties to identify wrongdoers. The absence of such procedures in the Rules of Court is a procedural inadequacy that justifies the exercise of the court's inherent jurisdiction. The court recognised Norwich Pharmacal relief as an appropriate development of South African law, allowing for pre-litigation disclosure orders against innocent third parties who possess in…

Source excerpt

• Norwich Pharmacal Relief
• Disclosure Of Information
• Inherent Jurisdiction
• Constitutional Right Of Access
• Procedural Development

Van Zyl v Wilson and Another (5772/2015)

Van Zyl v Wilson and Another (5772/2015) [2015] ZAECGHC 140 (4 December 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

5772/2015

Judge

J.D. Pickering

The court ordered disclosure of trust account details and proof of payment so the applicant could pursue an anti-dissipation interdict over sale proceeds.

• Anti Dissipation Interdict
• Attorney Client Confidentiality
• Domicilium Citandi Et Executandi
• Latent Defects
• Urgent Interdict
• Disclosure Of Information