South Africa Case Law

Director General Department of Forestry Fisheries and Environment and Another v Sheriff Pretoria North-East and Others (JA 44/2024)

Director General Department of Forestry Fisheries and Environment and Another v Sheriff Pretoria North-East and Others (JA 44/2024) [2025] ZALAC 29; (2025) 46 ILJ 1887 (LAC) (12 May 2025)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA 44/2024

Judges

Nkutha-Nkontwana JA, Waglay, Mooki AJA

The Labour Appeal Court held that section 66 of the Public Finance Management Act does not apply to the furnishing of security for an arbitration award under section 145(7) of the Labour Relations Act, as such security relates to an existing obligation and not a future financial commitment. The security bond signed by the Director-General is sufficient security as contemplated by section 145(7) of the LRA. The Labour Court erred in refusing to accept the bond on the basis of lack of ministerial authorisation. Preliminary points raised by the respondent on appeal were not entertained, as they…

Source excerpt

• Security For Awards
• Public Finance Management Act
• Arbitration Award Stay
• Ministerial Authorisation
• Reinstatement
• Appeal Procedure

Luphondo v Pieterse N.O and Another (J102/24)

Luphondo v Pieterse N.O and Another (J102/24) [2024] ZALCJHB 141 (10 April 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J102/24

Judge

R Daniels

The Labour Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospect of success and awarding costs against the applicant.

• Leave To Appeal
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Ministerial Authorisation
• Bias
• Urgent Interdict
• Leave-to-appeal

Waymark Infotech (Pty) Limited v Road Traffic Management Corporation (440/2017)

Waymark Infotech (Pty) Limited v Road Traffic Management Corporation (440/2017) [2018] ZASCA 11 (6 March 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

440/2017

Judges

Lewis, Seriti, Mathopo, Davis, Plasket

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that s 66 of the Public Finance Management Act does not apply to ordinary procurement contracts concluded after a proper tender process, even if they extend beyond one fiscal year, provided they do not embody loans, guarantees, or the giving of security. The contract between Waymark and RTMC was a present commitment to pay for professional services as rendered, not a future financial commitment as contemplated by s 66. The court found that requiring ministerial authorisation for all procurement contracts would be unworkable and contrary to the legislative sche…

Source excerpt

• Public Finance Management Act
• Future Financial Commitment
• Procurement Contracts
• Ministerial Authorisation