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
Mofokeng and Another v South African Municipal Workers Union and Another (C300/2022) [2025] ZALCCT 46 (7 July 2025)
The Labour Court rescinded a default judgment after finding the applicants had not been properly served with the main application and were unaware of it.
Mavundla v Gotcha Security Services (Pty) Ltd (CCT 170/24) [2025] ZACC 11 (18 June 2025)
The Constitutional Court held that the Labour Court misapplied the principles governing enforcement orders and reinstatement. The enforcement order issued by Moshoana J did not replace or extinguish the original arbitration award's effect, nor did it constitute a compromise or waiver of the applicant's entitlement to arrear remuneration. The applicant's contract of employment was restored from 1 August 2019, as per the arbitration award, and the subsequent enforcement order merely set a new date for factual reinstatement without altering the contractual restoration date. The applicant was the…
Source excerpt
Tinstwalo and Others v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (17268/2024) [2025] ZALCJHB 117 (10 March 2025)
The court found that urgency arose only when the respondent re-advertised the posts on 29 January 2025, not when the applicants initially threatened urgent proceedings. The delay was condoned as the applicants reasonably believed the respondent would not proceed with recruitment. The respondent's undertaking, made by a senior executive, was valid and binding, given in good faith to prevent prejudice while the dispute was pending. The applicants demonstrated a prima facie right to have their dispute resolved by the Bargaining Council without the recruitment process rendering the outcome moot.…
Source excerpt
Davids v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others and Miles v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others (854/2023) [2024] ZASCA 171 (12 December 2024)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the recommendations of the Military Ombud under section 6(8) of the Military Ombud Act 4 of 2012 are not final and binding on the Minister of Defence. The statutory language requires the Ombud to recommend appropriate relief for implementation to the Minister, but does not oblige the Minister to implement the Ombud's recommendations without independent consideration. The Minister must consider the recommendations and decide what relief is appropriate, providing reasons for any deviation. The Minister cannot simply ignore or reject the Ombud's recommendati…
Source excerpt
Khoele v Minister of Defence (28030/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1268 (2 December 2024)
The court found that it retains jurisdiction to adjudicate constructive dismissal claims involving SANDF members, as the constitutional right to fair labour practices applies even where the Labour Relations Act does not. The applicant provided a sufficient explanation for the delay in serving the statutory notice, including the death of her attorney and her mental health challenges, and demonstrated bona fide intent to prosecute her claim. The respondent did not suffer unreasonable prejudice from the delay. The interests of justice require that condonation be granted, allowing the applicant t…
Source excerpt
Sehole and Others v Gaanakgomo and Others (CIV APP FB 20/2022; UM87/2021) [2024] ZANWHC 51 (27 February 2024)
The appeal was dismissed because the Council meeting of 29 October 2020 was not properly quorated, as required by the Standing Rules and the Constitution. The attempt to introduce the Attendance Register as new evidence failed to meet the requirements for admission on appeal, as the explanation for its absence was insufficient and its authenticity was not established. The Turquand Rule does not apply to acts that are ultra vires, and cannot validate appointments made at an unlawful meeting. The Acting Municipal Manager's authority to institute proceedings was not challenged in the proper mann…
Source excerpt
Labuschagne v Minister of State Security Agency and Another (44033/19) [2023] ZAGPPHC 622 (17 July 2023)
The High Court dismissed a review over promotion, transfer and IPMS ratings at the State Security Agency, finding no entitlement to unit-head promotion or rating uplift.
Ramthlakgwe v Modimolle-Mookgopong Local Municipality and Another (JS562/23) [2023] ZALCJHB 190; (2023) 44 ILJ 2297 (LC) (15 June 2023)
The court held that the applicant's constitutional rights to silence and a fair trial are not compromised by the employer proceeding with a disciplinary hearing, even where criminal charges have been laid. The disciplinary process and criminal proceedings are distinct, with different standards of proof and admissibility of evidence. The applicant is not compelled to testify at the disciplinary hearing and must choose whether to defend himself or remain silent. The mere existence of criminal charges does not entitle the applicant to a postponement or withdrawal of disciplinary proceedings. The…
Source excerpt
Optimum Coal Terminal (Pty) Limited and Another v Richards Bay Coal Teminal (Pty) Limited and Others (D531/2023) [2023] ZAKZDHC 9 (1 March 2023)
The court found that NUM failed to establish a prima facie right to the urgent interim relief sought, as NUM is neither a shareholder nor a party to the contractual relationship with RBCT, and its members have no employment relationship with RBCT. The relief sought by NUM is identical to that sought by Optimum in the main application, and NUM's interests are adequately represented therein. The evidence did not support NUM's claims of irreparable harm or urgency, as alternative sources of income exist for NUM members and the time between the hearing of the interim application and the main appl…
Source excerpt
Gqithekhaya and Others v Amathole District Municipality (EL 601/2021) [2022] ZAECELLC 20; [2022] 4 All SA 106 (ECLD); [2022] 11 BLLR 1066 (ELC); 2023 (2) SA 227 (ECEL); (2023) 44 ILJ 627 (ECL) (5 August 2022)
The court held that while the respondent was entitled in principle to recover remuneration paid to employees for periods during which they participated in an unprotected strike, such recovery must comply with section 34 of the BCEA. This requires either the employees' written consent or a court order, arbitration award, or collective agreement authorizing the deductions. The respondent's unilateral deductions constituted unlawful self-help and violated the applicants' rights to fair labour practices and access to courts. Section 34(5) of the BCEA does not provide a standalone remedy for emplo…
Source excerpt
Explore more
