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
Gauteng Department of Human Settlements v Manong (J830/21) [2024] ZALCJHB 479 (25 November 2024)
The Labour Court upheld a special plea of prescription in a contractual damages claim arising from an irregular salary upgrade and dismissed the action.
Ademulegun v Monothendre (Pty) Ltd t/a GFT Group Fiveways Superspar (JS58/2020) [2024] ZALCJHB 123 (11 March 2024)
The court held that contractual claims for unpaid remuneration under the BCEA are debts subject to the Prescription Act, with a three-year prescription period. Each monthly underpayment constitutes a separate debt, and prescription runs from the end of each month when payment was due. The applicant's referral to the CCMA on 28 August 2019 interrupted prescription for claims not already prescribed at that date. Claims relating to the period from January 2011 to 28 August 2016 have prescribed, while claims after 28 August 2016 have not. The court found no basis to order costs, as neither party…
Source excerpt
Roux v University of Stellenbosch and Others (6577/22; 11368/15;) [2023] ZAWCHC 255 (13 October 2023)
The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate any gross irregularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings. The arbitrators provided the applicant with a fair hearing and correctly applied the law to the facts. Errors of law, if any, did not result in unfairness or deprive the applicant of a fair trial. The requirement to plead and prove special damages was not a jurisdictional fact but related to the proof of damages, and the arbitrators correctly distinguished between general and special damages. The statutory regimes cited by the applicant did not abrogate common law reme…
Source excerpt
Phetla v Mamusa Local Municipality and Others (UM117/2022) [2022] ZANWHC 37 (1 July 2022)
The court held that Mamusa Local Municipality unlawfully used the 2010 disciplinary regulations for post-2014 financial misconduct proceedings.
Appiah v Cricket South Africa and Another (J731/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 119 (13 August 2020)
The Labour Court dismissed an urgent bid to enforce an internal appeal outcome, holding the appeal body had exceeded its limited contractual mandate.
Discovery Life Limited v De Meyer (31288/18) [2018] ZAGPJHC 594 (26 October 2018)
The court found that the respondent breached the restraint of trade provisions by failing to return confidential client files upon resignation and by exporting client information to private email addresses. The respondent's subsequent return of the files did not cure the breach. The applicant established both the existence of the agreement and its breach, shifting the onus to the respondent to prove the restraint was unreasonable. The respondent failed to discharge this onus. The court held that the applicant's customer connections and confidential information are legitimate interests warrant…
Source excerpt
Rahn v Cheil South Africa (Pty) Ltd (JS752/13) [2017] ZALCJHB 319 (5 September 2017)
The Labour Court held that Rahn’s dismissal was not automatically unfair and was fair, finding gross insubordination and no dominant causal link to her grievance.
Mbelani v Eastern Cape Development Corporation (491/16) [2017] ZAECELLC 2 (24 January 2017)
The High Court upheld an exception to particulars of claim in an employment dispute, finding the pleadings lacked factual averments and sufficient detail on breach and damages.
Econ Oil and Energy (Pty) Ltd v TWN Petroleum Services and Another (61265/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 671 (17 September 2015)
Urgent interdict application dismissed where the applicant failed to prove unlawful competition, misuse of confidential information, or any present invasion of rights.
Van Rensburg Pathologists Incorporated v Rampana (A70/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 191 (19 December 2013)
The High Court found that the Magistrate's Court did have jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's claim for specific performance and damages arising from breach of an employment contract, as such claims are not exclusively reserved for the Labour Court under the Labour Relations Act. The mere fact that the contract was an employment contract did not oust the Magistrate's Court's jurisdiction. However, the appellant was not entitled to proceed by way of application proceedings in the Magistrate's Court, as the Act only permits application proceedings in limited, specifically sanctioned circu…
Source excerpt
Explore more
