South Africa Case Law

N v Sky Services (Pty) Ltd (JS778/15)

N v Sky Services (Pty) Ltd (JS778/15) [2018] ZALCJHB 278; [2019] 5 BLLR 504 (LC) (21 August 2018)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS778/15

Judge

Mahosi

The applicant failed to establish that the respondent was aware of his HIV status or that his dismissal was based on discrimination due to HIV. The evidence showed that the respondent dismissed the applicant for incapacity following medical assessments that declared him medically unfit for duty. The respondent's witnesses consistently denied knowledge of the applicant's HIV status prior to the CCMA proceedings, and the applicant himself admitted keeping his illness private. The Court found that the real reason for dismissal was incapacity, not discrimination, and therefore the Labour Court la…

Source excerpt

• Automatically Unfair Dismissal
• Discrimination
• Hiv Status
• Jurisdiction
• Incapacity
• Referral To Arbitration

M v Johannesburg Metropolitan Bus Services (Pty) Ltd (JS661/12)

M v Johannesburg Metropolitan Bus Services (Pty) Ltd (JS661/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 400 (13 November 2015)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS661/12

Judge

Everett

The Labour Court dismissed claims of HIV-based discrimination and automatically unfair dismissal, finding no dismissal and no unlawful discrimination proved.

• Automatically Unfair Dismissal
• Unfair Discrimination
• Hiv Status
• Employment Equity Act
• Labour Relations Act
• Unfair-discrimination

S v L.C (CA 168/08)

S v L.C (CA 168/08) [2009] ZAECGHC 9 (19 March 2009)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA 168/08

Judges

Jones, Pillay, Van der Byl

The court found that the aggravating circumstances of the case, including the victim's severe mental disability, her inability to defend herself or consent, and the appellant's knowledge of his HIV positive status, justified the imposition of the prescribed sentence of life imprisonment under section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The appellant's personal circumstances, such as being a first offender and alleged intoxication, did not amount to substantial and compelling circumstances as envisaged by section 51(3). The trial court's assessment was thorough and balanced, and there was…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Sentencing
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Criminal Law Amendment Act
• Mental Disability
• Hiv Status