Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Dlongolo v University of Zululand (D306/19) [2023] ZALCD 9 (1 June 2023)
The Labour Court held that the university made a binding offer to compensate the applicant for early-retirement penalties and ordered payment, interest, and costs.
Manamela v National Commissioner South African Police Service and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 202; 020531/2023 (23 March 2023)
The High Court set aside the suspension of a provincial police commissioner, finding the notice too vague to satisfy procedural fairness under PAJA.
City of Joburg Property Company (SOC) Limited v Kuhlmann (JA99/20) [2021] ZALAC 48; (2022) 43 ILJ 1077 (LAC) (10 December 2021)
The Labour Appeal Court set aside an order requiring the employer to resume paying salary, holding that the relief was not sought and lacked a legal basis.
Mbedzi v Director General, Department of International Relations and Cooperation and Others (55063/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 596 (14 September 2021)
The High Court ordered DIRCO to retrospectively upgrade an employee’s foreign posting rank and pay backdated COLA, holding the Public Protector’s remedial action should be implemented.
Mothiba v Exxaro Coal (Pty) Ltd t/a Grootgeluk Coal Mine (JA49/2019) [2021] ZALAC 37; (2021) 42 ILJ 1910 (LAC) (14 June 2021)
The Labour Appeal Court held that Mothiba’s affidavit about property ownership was clear, upheld her dismissal for dishonesty, and dismissed the appeal.
Daza v National Economic Development and the Labour Council (NEDLAC) (JS 218/2020) [2020] ZALCJHB 165 (18 August 2020)
The Labour Court refused default judgment where the applicant’s labour-practice, wage, leave, deduction, payslip, and UIF claims were not properly pleaded or within its jurisdiction.
Twaku v Member of Executive Council Responsible for Education, Eastern Cape Province and Another (CA2/2014) [2015] ZAECGHC 38 (5 February 2015)
The court held that the Rule 37 agreement rendered Greyling's affidavit admissible and undisputed, establishing that the Department did not pay the arrear amount into the appellant's home loan account. The respondents' evidence to the contrary was inadmissible and of negligible probative value. The Department's breach of its contractual obligation directly caused the sale in execution and loss of the appellant's property. The damages claimed were reasonably foreseeable and flowed naturally from the breach. The appellant was entitled to claim damages to place him in the position he would have…
Source excerpt
Hiberia (Pty) Ltd T/A Acts Projects v Lourens and Another (2013/44435) [2014] ZAGPJHC 306 (30 October 2014)
High Court application to recover a Ford Ranger from a former employee succeeded; a counterclaim for refund of a R70,000 deposit failed, but IRP5 forms had to be delivered.
Andrews v MEC for Health of the Western Cape (A08/2011) [2011] ZAWCHC 451 (5 August 2011)
The court held that the appellant's dispute regarding his accommodation at Alexandra Hospital, and the Department's termination of this benefit, was employment-related and fell within the definition of an unfair labour practice under section 186(2)(a) of the Labour Relations Act. The Public Health & Welfare Sectoral Bargaining Council was the competent forum to resolve such disputes, and the Magistrate's Court should not have pre-empted the Bargaining Council's determination. The eviction application should have been stayed pending the final outcome of the Bargaining Council proceedings. The…
Source excerpt
Ethekwini Municipality v SA Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (D343/07) [2009] ZALC 43 (27 February 2009)
The court found that the arbitration hearing did not constitute a full and fair trial of the issues, as no viva voce evidence was led and the parties failed to produce a pre-arbitration minute or agree on the status of documents. The arbitrator improperly imported evidence from prior arbitration hearings and drew adverse inferences against the applicant without proven facts. The onus of proof was incorrectly placed on the applicant, and the employees failed to discharge their burden to prove the existence of the claimed benefits or the commission of an unfair labour practice. The costs order…
Source excerpt
Explore more
