South Africa Case Law

Ntombela v Community Scheme Ombud Service and Others (J1631/23)

Ntombela v Community Scheme Ombud Service and Others (J1631/23) [2024] ZALCJHB 121 (12 March 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1631/23

Judge

Ngwenya

The applicant made a disclosure to the Audit and Risk Committee regarding alleged maladministration and malfeasance, which qualifies as a protected disclosure under the Protected Disclosure Act. There is no evidence of malice, reckless abandon, or ulterior motive, and the disclosure was made in good faith. The applicant was placed on suspension the day after the disclosure, satisfying the requirements for occupational detriment. The jurisdictional requirements for invoking section 188A(11) of the Labour Relations Act have been met. Accordingly, the internal disciplinary proceedings must be in…

Source excerpt

• Protected Disclosure
• Occupational Detriment
• Section 188a Lra
• Disciplinary Procedure
• Good Faith Disclosure

SPE Project Management CC v Blignaut N.O and Others (4707/2020)

SPE Project Management CC v Blignaut N.O and Others (4707/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 328 (21 December 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4707/2020

Judge

N S Daniso

The High Court discharged a rule nisi to perfect a notarial bond, finding the applicant failed to disclose material facts in an ex parte urgent application.

• Notarial Bond Perfection
• Ex Parte Applications
• Urgent Interdict
• Good Faith Disclosure
• Loan Agreements
• Notarial-bond-perfection

Nortje v University of KwaZulu Natal (D858/10)

Nortje v University of KwaZulu Natal (D858/10) [2016] ZALCD 11 (1 June 2016)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D858/10

Judge

Lagrange

The Labour Court dismissed an automatically unfair dismissal claim based on alleged protected disclosures and found the dismissal substantively and procedurally fair.

• Protected Disclosure
• Automatically Unfair Dismissal
• Employment Equity
• Disciplinary Procedure
• Good Faith Disclosure
• Protected-disclosure

Nxumalo v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (D1092/13)

Nxumalo v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (D1092/13) [2015] ZALCD 60; (2016) 37 ILJ 177 (LC) (30 September 2015)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D1092/13

Judge

Cele

The applicant failed to prove that his recording and distribution of the workplace meeting constituted a protected disclosure under the Protected Disclosures Act. The transcript relied upon did not contain compelling circumstantial evidence of criminal or other misconduct, nor did it show that the applicant's transfer was orchestrated by a prisoner for illegitimate purposes. The applicant did not suffer an occupational detriment as contemplated by the PDA. The respondents' objections to the authenticity of the transcript were opportunistic, as they intended to use the transcript in disciplina…

Source excerpt

• Protected Disclosure
• Occupational Detriment
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Interdict
• Good Faith Disclosure

Ngobeni v Minister of Communications and Another (J08/14)

Ngobeni v Minister of Communications and Another (J08/14) [2014] ZALCJHB 96; (2014) 35 ILJ 2506 (LC) (3 April 2014)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J08/14

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

The court found that the applicant made disclosures regarding financial impropriety in good faith and that these disclosures qualify for protection under the Protected Disclosure Act. However, the court determined that the intended disciplinary action against the applicant was not solely or predominantly on account of his protected disclosures, but also related to independent allegations of misconduct. The applicant failed to establish that the disciplinary proceedings constituted an occupational detriment as defined by the Act, nor did he demonstrate irreparable harm or the absence of altern…

Source excerpt

• Protected Disclosure Act
• Occupational Detriment
• Unfair Labour Practice
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Good Faith Disclosure

Potgieter v Tubatse Ferrochrome and Others (JR 1874/08)

Potgieter v Tubatse Ferrochrome and Others (JR 1874/08) [2011] ZALCJHB 96; [2012] 5 BLLR 509 (LC); (2012) 33 ILJ 953 (LC) (10 November 2011)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR 1874/08

Judge

Louw AJ

The Labour Court dismissed a review of an arbitration award, holding that the refusal to order reinstatement was reasonable and that the disclosure was not shown to be protected.

• Protected Disclosure
• Unfair Dismissal
• Remedies For Unfair Dismissal
• Good Faith Disclosure
• Procedural Fairness
• Unfair-dismissal

Randles v Chemical Specialist Ltd (D 42/2010)

Randles v Chemical Specialist Ltd (D 42/2010) [2010] ZALC 22; (2010) 31 ILJ 2150 (LC) ; [2010] 7 BLLR 730 (LC) (5 February 2010)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

D 42/2010

Judge

Cele

The Labour Court granted an urgent interim interdict stopping disciplinary action against an employee who said he had made protected disclosures.

• Protected Disclosure
• Occupational Detriment
• Interim Interdict
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Good Faith Disclosure
• Protected-disclosure

Randles v Chemical Specialities Ltd (D42/2010)

Randles v Chemical Specialities Ltd (D42/2010) [2010] ZALCD 3 (5 February 2010)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D42/2010

Judge

Cele

The court found that the applicant's disclosures to the board of the respondent and subsequently to the JSE were sufficiently detailed and made in good faith, satisfying the requirements of section 6 of the Protected Disclosures Act for the purposes of interim relief. The respondent's argument that the applicant had waived protection under the PDA by participating in the disciplinary enquiry was rejected, as the PDA involves public interests and such protection cannot be lawfully waived. The disciplinary proceedings against the applicant were found to be instituted, at least in part, on accou…

Source excerpt

• Protected Disclosure
• Occupational Detriment
• Interim Interdict
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Good Faith Disclosure

Radebe and Another v Mashoff Premier of Free State Province and Others (JS140/08)

Radebe and Another v Mashoff Premier of Free State Province and Others (JS140/08) [2009] ZALC 20; [2009] 6 BLLR 564 (LC); (2009) 30 ILJ 1900 (LC) (17 February 2009)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

JS140/08

Judge

G N Moshoana

The court found that the applicants' document did not constitute a disclosure as defined by the Protected Disclosure Act, as it was based largely on speculation, opinions, and unsupported allegations rather than facts showing or tending to show impropriety. The conduct complained of was primarily that of the MEC, who was not the employer as contemplated by the PDA. The applicants failed to provide supporting documents and refused to cooperate with the investigation, undermining their claim of good faith. Even if the document were considered a disclosure, it did not meet the requirements for p…

Source excerpt

• Protected Disclosure Act
• Unfair Labour Practice
• Occupational Detriment
• Good Faith Disclosure
• Remedies For Unfair Labour Practice

Du Preez v Du Preez (16043/2008)

Du Preez v Du Preez (16043/2008) [2008] ZAGPHC 334 (24 October 2008)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

16043/2008

Judge

Murphy

The court found that both parties, aided by their legal representatives, had engaged in excessive prolixity in their Rule 43 papers, which is an abuse of process and contrary to the spirit and purpose of Rule 43. The applicant's previous Rule 43 application had already been dismissed for prolixity, yet she failed to heed the lesson and again submitted unnecessarily verbose affidavits and annexures. The respondent's reply, though less extensive, was also unnecessarily verbose. The court held that the circumstances were not exceptional enough to justify the inordinate length of the papers. Furt…

Source excerpt

• Rule 43 Proceedings
• Maintenance Pendente Lite
• Prolixity And Abuse Of Process
• Good Faith Disclosure
• Costs Orders