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
Solidarity obo Mqoni v South African Police Service and Others (J 658/24) [2024] ZALCJHB 521 (1 August 2024)
The Labour Court interdicts SAPS from making unilateral salary deductions from a brigadier and orders repayment, finding the deductions unlawful and urgent.
Anglogold Ashanti Limited v Moloko (J 1199/20) [2022] ZALCJHB 64 (9 March 2022)
The court held that the requirements for declaring a litigant vexatious under section 2(1)(b) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act were not met. The respondent's institution of five legal proceedings did not amount to persistent or recurrent litigation, as each proceeding was based on distinct causes of action and the time to stop had not yet arrived. The court found that Moloko was exercising his statutory and constitutional rights to fair labour practices and access to court, and his actions did not demonstrate obsession or lack of reasonable cause. Referrals to the CCMA and complaints to chapt…
Source excerpt
Union for Police Security and Correction Organisations v South African Custodial Management and Others (804/2018) [2020] ZALMPTHC 2 (5 May 2020)
The High Court upheld exceptions to an amended claim based on constitutional rights and defamation, ordering the plaintiff to amend its pleading.
Long v South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd and Others; Long v South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd and Others (CCT61/18) [2019] ZACC 7; (2019) 40 ILJ 965 (CC); 2019 (5) BCLR 609 (CC) ; [2019] 6 BLLR 515 (CC) (19 February 2019)
The Constitutional Court held that a precautionary suspension need not be preceded by a hearing, and set aside an adverse costs order made by the Labour Court.
Golding v Regional Tourism Organisation of Southern Africa and Others (J2501/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 376 (18 October 2017)
The Labour Court granted an interim interdict stopping disciplinary proceedings against the CEO pending a High Court challenge to the validity of the board resolutions.
Maloka v Department of Justice And Constitutional Development and Others (JR 1740/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 98 (18 March 2015)
The Labour Court found that the First Respondent's decision not to reinstate the Applicant was irrational and failed to consider the Applicant's written submissions and personal circumstances. The Applicant's absence was not wilful, and she maintained reasonable contact with her supervisor, who also believed she was on suspension. The Respondents relied solely on the arbitrator's findings without independently assessing the Applicant's evidence or the impact of her son's death. The Court held that the principles of legality and fair labour practice required a rational decision-making process,…
Source excerpt
SAMWU obo Nemo and Others v Mopani District Municipality (J3047/12) [2013] ZALCJHB 34 (9 April 2013)
The court found that the application was urgent, as the delay in recruitment prejudiced the applicant's members and the public, and the respondent was afforded a fair opportunity to respond. The challenge to the authority of the deponent was not made in the prescribed manner under Rule 7(1), and the notice of motion was properly signed by the attorney, rendering the objection without merit. The Labour Court had jurisdiction to interdict unfair conduct, and the applicants demonstrated a clear right to fair labour practices and to participate in a just recruitment process. The relief sought did…
Source excerpt
Mdyesha v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (1455/07) [2007] ZAECHC 90; [2008] 2 All SA 450 (SE) (31 July 2007)
The court found that it lacked jurisdiction because the cause of action arose in Mthatha, outside the area of jurisdiction of the South Eastern Cape Division, and none of the respondents reside within its jurisdiction. The applicant failed to prove that the respondents submitted to the jurisdiction of this court. Even if jurisdiction existed, the application was not urgent, as the applicant delayed instituting proceedings and failed to provide sufficient reasons for urgency. Furthermore, the principle of lis pendens applied, as the same relief was sought in the Labour Court and through the pe…
Source excerpt
Badenhorst v Minister of Defence (37350/05) [2006] ZAGPHC 122 (11 August 2006)
The High Court reviewed and set aside a Defence Force discharge after finding the applicant was denied written reasons and fair procedure.
Hlope and Others v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (J1828/05) [2005] ZALC 103; [2006] 3 BLLR 297 (LC); (2006) 27 ILJ 1003 (LC) (13 December 2005)
The Labour Court discharged a rule nisi blocking SAPS transfers, finding a prima facie contractual breach but no irreparable harm or lack of alternative remedy.
Explore more
