South Africa Case Law

Chibane and Another v Premier of Province of Kwazulu-Natal (DA15/2024)

Chibane and Another v Premier of Province of Kwazulu-Natal (DA15/2024) [2025] ZALAC 44 (15 July 2025)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

DA15/2024

Judges

Van Niekerk, Tokota, Basson

The Labour Appeal Court held that the Labour Court does not have general jurisdiction to intervene in incomplete disciplinary proceedings or to grant declaratory relief regarding delay and waiver unless specifically conferred by statute. The pleadings did not invoke any statutory provision or contractual basis for the claims advanced, and no permissible ground for review was articulated. The Labour Court was correct to refuse to entertain the review application in medias res, as there is a general rule against reviewing interlocutory rulings mid-process absent exceptional circumstances. The a…

Source excerpt

• Labour Court Jurisdiction
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Unreasonable Delay
• Waiver Of Rights
• Review Of Interlocutory Ruling

Liesering v City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others (J769/22)

Liesering v City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others (J769/22) [2024] ZALCJHB 246 (24 June 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J769/22

Judge

D Mahosi

The Labour Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against an order striking the matter from the roll for lack of urgency, finding no reasonable prospects of success.

• Leave To Appeal
• Urgency
• Costs Award
• Labour Court Jurisdiction
• Leave-to-appeal
• Labour-court

Mckenzie v Jantjies (C472/2021)

Mckenzie v Jantjies (C472/2021) [2023] ZALCCT 27 (21 June 2023)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C472/2021

Judge

C de Kock

The Labour Court dismissed an application to join a second respondent, finding no common issues of law or fact and no substantial interest in the dispute.

• Joinder Of Parties
• Labour Court Jurisdiction
• Fraudulent Misrepresentation
• Settlement Agreement
• Joinder-of-parties
• Labour-court-jurisdiction

Letimile v Cape Town International Convention Centre Company SOC Ltd (C575/2021)

Letimile v Cape Town International Convention Centre Company SOC Ltd (C575/2021) [2023] ZALCCT 5; (2023) 44 ILJ 1300 (LC); [2023] 7 BLLR 670 (LC) (8 March 2023)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C575/2021

Judge

Rabkin-Naicker

The Labour Court dismissed an exception based on subsidiarity, holding that section 157(2) of the LRA can support claims for workplace-related constitutional rights violations.

• Subsidiarity Principle
• Labour Court Jurisdiction
• Constitutional Damages
• Section 157 Lra
• Employment Equity Act
• Fundamental Rights In Employment

Amalungelo Workers' Union and Others v Philip Morris South Africa (Pty) Limited and Another (CCT20/18)

Amalungelo Workers' Union and Others v Philip Morris South Africa (Pty) Limited and Another (CCT20/18) [2019] ZACC 45; 2020 (2) BCLR 125 (CC); [2020] 3 BLLR 225 (CC); (2020) 41 ILJ 863 (CC) (26 November 2019)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 20/18

Judges

Mogoeng, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Theron, Victor

The Constitutional Court held that section 77(1) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Labour Court in respect of all matters arising from the Act, except where the Act itself provides otherwise. The Court found that there is no provision in the Basic Conditions of Employment Act requiring disputes to be referred to a labour inspector before approaching the Labour Court. The functions of labour inspectors are administrative and do not include dispute resolution. The Labour Court erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the applican…

Source excerpt

• Basic Conditions Of Employment Act
• Labour Court Jurisdiction
• Unlawful Salary Deductions
• Section 34 Bcea
• Access To Court
• Interpretation Of Statutes

Mlokothi v Trollip and Others (193/2017)

Mlokothi v Trollip and Others (193/2017) [2017] ZAECPEHC 43 (5 September 2017)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

193/2017

Judge

Chetty

The High Court dismissed a review of a municipal manager appointment rescission, holding the council was justified after the applicant failed to disclose material facts.

• Municipal Manager Appointment
• Ultra Vires Decision
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Labour Court Jurisdiction
• Misrepresentation
• Local Government Systems Act

MEC of the Western Cape Provincial Government Health Department v Coetzee and Others (CA3/2011)

MEC of the Western Cape Provincial Government Health Department v Coetzee and Others (CA3/2011) [2015] ZALAC 35; [2015] 11 BLLR 1108 (LAC) ; (2015) 36 ILJ 3010 (LAC) (24 August 2015)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

CA3/2011

Judges

Tlaletsi DJP, Ndlovu JA, Coppin JA

The Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to interpret and apply the collective agreement in this matter. Section 158(2)(b) of the LRA only permits the Labour Court to sit as arbitrator if it becomes apparent after referral that arbitration is required, not where this is known from the outset. The parties' consent cannot confer jurisdiction where the statutory requirements are not met. The real dispute, as revealed by the pleadings, concerned the interpretation and application of the collective agreement, which must be resolved by arbitration under section 24 of the LRA. Section 77(3) of the BCEA…

Source excerpt

• Collective Agreement Interpretation
• Labour Court Jurisdiction
• Section 158 Lra
• Section 77 Bcea
• Prescription Of Claims

Mads Pub & Sizzle CC t/a The Grand v Ngwenya and Others (JS448/12)

Mads Pub & Sizzle CC t/a The Grand v Ngwenya and Others (JS448/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 157 (21 May 2015)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS448/12

Judge

Coetzee

The court found that the first and third respondents are peregrini, residing outside South Africa, with no known assets or addresses within the jurisdiction. Their conduct in using false identities prejudiced the applicant, and their financial position was not disclosed. The court held that there were no special circumstances to absolve them from providing security for costs. The delay in bringing the application was not prejudicial, and the amount sought was reduced to R60,000 per respondent as reasonable for trial costs. The security must be paid into the trust account of the respondents' a…

Source excerpt

• Security For Costs
• Peregrinus
• Constructive Dismissal
• Labour Court Jurisdiction

Intervalve (Pty) Ltd and Another v National Union Of Metalworkers Of South Africa obo Members (JA24/2012)

Intervalve (Pty) Ltd and Another v National Union Of Metalworkers Of South Africa obo Members (JA24/2012) [2014] ZALAC 29; (2014) 35 ILJ 3048 (LAC) (26 March 2014)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA24/2012

Judges

Waglay JP, Francis AJA, Dlodlo AJA

The Labour Appeal Court held that NUMSA failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of section 191 of the Labour Relations Act by not timeously referring the dispute against Intervalve and BHR for conciliation, nor showing good cause for late referral. The Labour Court Rules, including Rule 22, cannot override statutory prerequisites. Without proper conciliation, the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the joinder application. The facts did not establish a direct and substantial interest for Intervalve and BHR in the dispute between NUMSA and Steinmüller, as a judgment against…

Source excerpt

• Joinder Of Parties
• Conciliation Requirement
• Unfair Dismissal
• Labour Court Jurisdiction
• Labour Relations Act
• Rule 22 Applications

UASA -The Union and Another v BHP Billiton Energy Coal South Africa and Another (JS1082/09)

UASA -The Union and Another v BHP Billiton Energy Coal South Africa and Another (JS1082/09) [2012] ZALCJHB 97; [2013] 1 BLLR 82 (LC); (2013) 34 ILJ 1298 (LC) (7 May 2012)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS1082/09

Judge

AC Basson

The Labour Court has jurisdiction to determine the lawfulness or validity of an agency shop agreement under section 77(1) and 77(2) of the BCEA, which qualifies as 'any other law' under section 157(1) of the LRA. The applicants' claim for a declaration of invalidity and reimbursement of deducted monies falls within this jurisdiction. However, the constitutional challenge to the agency shop agreement is not competent unless the applicants also challenge the constitutionality of section 25 of the LRA itself. The principle of constitutional subsidiarity requires litigants to rely on legislation…

Source excerpt

• Agency Shop Agreement
• Labour Court Jurisdiction
• Constitutional Challenge
• Deductions From Remuneration