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
O'Hara v Parliament of South Africa and Another (C 2024-125867) [2024] ZALCCT 71 (2 December 2024)
The Labour Court dismissed an urgent review of a disciplinary chairperson’s refusal to recuse himself, finding no grave injustice or exceptional grounds for intervention.
Innovative Staffing Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Others v National Bargaining Council for Road Freight and Logistics Industry and Others (JA128/2023) [2024] ZALAC 54; [2025] 2 BLLR 144 (LAC); (2025) 46 ILJ 336 (LAC) (12 November 2024)
The Labour Appeal Court held that s 33A(4)(b) of the LRA does not bar the CCMA from appointing an arbitrator who also serves on a bargaining council panel.
Mako v SA Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (JR327/21) [2024] ZALCJHB 270 (15 July 2024)
The court found that the applicant's grounds for review were without merit. The arbitrator's evaluation of the evidence was reasonable, and the applicant's version was inconsistent and improbable. The refusal to allow a further witness, while incorrect in principle, did not materially affect the fairness of the proceedings or the outcome, as the evidence was not put to the employer's witnesses and was irrelevant to the central issue. The absence of a pre-suspension hearing did not render the dismissal procedurally unfair, as suspension was precautionary. The applicant failed to demonstrate th…
Source excerpt
Associated Portfolio Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Another v Basson and Others (554/2019) [2020] ZASCA 64; 2021 (1) SA 341 (SCA) (12 June 2020)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the debarment of Mr Basson was an administrative action subject to review under PAJA. The court found that the disciplinary inquiry established facts directly relevant to Mr Basson's honesty and integrity, which are central to the fit and proper requirements under the FAIS Act. The notices sent to Mr Basson provided adequate warning of the impending debarment and invited him to make representations, which he did through his attorneys. The court rejected the argument that a separate debarment inquiry was required, holding that the disciplinary process suff…
Source excerpt
Queens College Boys High School v MEC, Department of Education, Eastern Cape Government (454/08) [2008] ZAECHC 165 (21 October 2008)
The court found that the department's refusal to confirm the school's expulsion recommendations in respect of the last three incidents of serious misconduct was unlawful. The department failed to properly consider the school's legitimate concerns regarding discipline and the potential detrimental effect of not ordering expulsion in a worsening disciplinary environment. The department's delay, lack of engagement with the school, and failure to address rehabilitation procedures or the breakdown in discipline indicated a failure to apply its mind and to act reasonably. In relation to the dagga i…
Source excerpt
Muckleneuk/Lukasrand Property Owners and Residents Association v MEC Department of Agriculture Conservation and Environment Gauteng Provincial Government and Others (Review Application 28192/04), Muckleneuk/Lukasrand Property Owners and Residents Association v HOD Department of Agriculture Conservation and Environment Gauteng Provincial Government and Others (Urgent Application 12137/06) (28192/04 , 12137/06) [2006] ZAGPHC 86; [2007] 4 All SA 1265 (T) (30 August 2006)
The High Court upheld a conditional environmental authorization for the Gautrain, rejecting claims of lack of authority, bias, and inadequate reasons.
Umfolozi Transport (Edms) Bpk v Minister van Vervoer en Andere (231/95) [1997] ZASCA 8; ; [1997] 2 All SA 548 (A); (13 March 1997)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that TAS tendered as principal and was the proper contracting party. The Board's procedures were administratively fair, and sufficient information was provided to enable a proper exercise of discretion. The Board was entitled to award the contract to the lowest tender unless material risks were present, and no evidence of actual bias or unfairness was established. The statutory framework did not prohibit the Board from considering tenders from state-related entities, and the regulatory safeguards were adequate. Umfolozi's existing contract had lawfully expired…
Source excerpt
Council of Review South African Defence Force and Others v Monnig and Others (610/89) [1992] ZASCA 64; [1992] 4 All SA 691 (AD) (15 May 1992)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the court martial, composed of senior Defence Force officers, was placed in an intolerable position of having to adjudicate the legality of Defence Force actions and policies, which raised a reasonable suspicion of institutional bias. The MDC and the Defence Act did not expressly or by implication exclude the right to recusal on such grounds. The failure of the court martial to recuse itself constituted a fundamental irregularity, rendering its proceedings a nullity. The subsequent review by the council of review could not cure this failure of justice, as…
Source excerpt
Explore more
