South Africa Case Law

South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union obo Manzini v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1505/23)

South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union obo Manzini v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1505/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 288 (9 May 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR 1505/23

Judge

M T M Phehane

The Labour Court held that the review application on substantive fairness must fail, as the second respondent's decision to uphold the dismissal was reasonable in light of the evidence, including video footage showing Ms Manzini's violent conduct. The principle of double jeopardy was not triggered, as no second disciplinary hearing occurred; rather, management reviewed the sanction under an empowering provision in the disciplinary code. The doctrine of subsidiarity precluded reliance on constitutional unlawfulness, requiring the applicant to pursue remedies under the Labour Relations Act. How…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Procedural Fairness
• Double Jeopardy
• Disciplinary Code
• Subsidiarity
• Compensation For Unfair Dismissal

Castle and Another v Safety and Security Sector Bargaining Council (SSSBC) and Others (JR975/21)

Castle and Another v Safety and Security Sector Bargaining Council (SSSBC) and Others (JR975/21) [2025] ZALCJHB 48 (12 February 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR975/21

Judge

M Makhura

Labour Court review dismissed after finding SAPS officers fairly dismissed for failing to investigate an assault case and for contrived disciplinary warnings.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Disciplinary Procedure
• Double Jeopardy
• Progressive Discipline
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Unfair-dismissal

Makopo v Minister of Police (A241/22)

Makopo v Minister of Police (A241/22) [2025] ZAGPPHC 69 (21 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A241/22

Judges

Mbongwe, Hassim, Lesufi

The High Court dismissed an appeal over alleged unlawful arrest and detention, holding the arrests were justified under section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

• Unlawful Arrest
• Detention Without Warrant
• Schedule 1 Offence
• Double Jeopardy
• Reasonable Suspicion
• Unlawful-arrest

S v Chukwumaka and Another (CA&R 104/2024)

S v Chukwumaka and Another (CA&R 104/2024) [2024] ZAECMKHC 63 (13 June 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

CA&R 104/2024

Judges

B Hartle, S Collett

High Court special review set aside irregular convictions and sentences entered after an earlier plea of not guilty, and remitted the matter for completion of the original trial.

• Double Jeopardy
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 304
• Plea And Conviction Irregularity
• Right To Interpreter
• Legal Aid Representation
• Special-review

Vico v Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment and Another (C184/2024)

Vico v Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment and Another (C184/2024) [2024] ZALCCT 19 (27 May 2024)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C184/2024

Judge

T Gandidze

Urgent bid to stop a disciplinary hearing failed because the applicant showed no clear right, no exceptional circumstances, and had other remedies.

• Final Interdict
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Double Jeopardy
• Urgent Relief
• Urgent-interdict

Special Investigating Unit v Netshidaulu and Others (LP01/2024)

Special Investigating Unit v Netshidaulu and Others (LP01/2024) [2024] ZAST 4 (16 May 2024)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

LP01/2024

Judge

L.T. Modiba

The Tribunal found that the SIU failed to meet the requirements for urgency, as its delay in instituting proceedings was unexplained and the urgency was self-created. The SIU did not establish that it would be denied substantive redress in due course. The double jeopardy defence was dismissed as it applies only to criminal proceedings, not civil actions. The Tribunal held that the decision to appoint Blackhead Consulting remains valid until reviewed and set aside, rendering any cause of action based on procurement irregularities premature. The SIU failed to establish a prima facie right to an…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Joinder
• Urgency
• Double Jeopardy
• Oudkraal Principle
• Disciplinary Acquittal

Firstrand Bank Limited v Mokoena and Others (35888/2022)

Firstrand Bank Limited v Mokoena and Others (35888/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 415 (26 April 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

35888/2022

Judge

J J Meiring

The court held that the special plea of lis alibi pendens was not sustainable because the liquidation application and the present application for payment under the suretyship involved different parties, subject-matter, and causes of action. Liquidation proceedings do not constitute proceedings for the recovery of a debt, and thus the requirements for lis alibi pendens were not met. The doctrine of double jeopardy, while a cornerstone of criminal law, is already reflected in civil law through the plea of res judicata and does not bar the applicant's claim. On the merits, the breaches relied up…

Source excerpt

• Suretyship
• Lis Alibi Pendens
• Double Jeopardy
• Remedial Plan Clause
• Unclean Hands
• Attorney And Client Costs

Mkhonza v Masenye .O and Others (JR1726/2021)

Mkhonza v Masenye .O and Others (JR1726/2021) [2024] ZALCJHB 14 (9 January 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1726/2021

Judge

Phakedi

The Labour Court dismissed a review of a condonation ruling, finding the employee gave an inadequate explanation for a late unfair dismissal referral.

• Condonation
• Unfair Dismissal
• Double Jeopardy
• Late Referral
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Disciplinary Hearing

Director of Public Prosecutions KwaZulu-Natal v Mzanywa and Another (AR374/2022)

Director of Public Prosecutions KwaZulu-Natal v Mzanywa and Another (AR374/2022) [2023] ZAKZPHC 108 (13 October 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR374/2022

Judges

Mossop, E Bezuidenhout

The court held that the applicant's dissatisfaction with the magistrate's decision does not constitute grounds for review, as no procedural irregularity was identified. The distinction between appeal and review was emphasized: review is concerned with legality and process, not the correctness of the decision. The court found that the State's complaint was solely about the merits of the acquittal, which is not reviewable. Furthermore, the court held that the acquittal is not appealable by the State except on a narrow question of law, and the facts of this case do not raise such a question. The…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Acquittal
• Culpable Homicide
• Double Jeopardy
• Section 174 Discharge
• Appeal Vs Review

SAMWU obo A N Malatsi v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (JR 1211 / 2018)

SAMWU obo A N Malatsi v South African Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (JR 1211 / 2018) [2023] ZALCJHB 63; [2023] 6 BLLR 581 (LC) (13 March 2023)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR 1211 / 2018

Judge

Prinsloo

Review dismissed: the Labour Court held that the second disciplinary process was not double jeopardy and that the dismissal for password-sharing misconduct was fair.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Double Jeopardy
• Disciplinary Procedure
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Costs Award
• Unfair-dismissal