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
Mononela v Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati District Municipality and Others (J876/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 214 (5 August 2021)
The Labour Court struck an urgent application off the roll because the applicant failed to show genuine urgency. Costs were awarded against him.
Fihlani v Ingquza Hill Local Municipality and Others (652/19) [2019] ZAECMHC 14 (12 March 2019)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to resume his duties as Municipal Manager while suspended, as the lawfulness of the suspension and the instruction he refused to implement remain to be determined in the review proceedings. The suspension is a precautionary measure permitted by both contract and legislation, and there is no evidence of imminent irreparable harm that would justify interim relief. The balance of convenience favours the employer’s right to conduct an unhindered investigation, and the applicant has alternative remedies available. Consequen…
Source excerpt
Hadebe v Msunduzi Municipality (D1558/18) [2018] ZALCD 13 (17 August 2018)
The court found that the respondent had complied with the requirements of regulation 6 of the Local Government: Disciplinary Regulations for Senior Managers, 2010. The applicant was given notice of the intended suspension and an opportunity to make representations, which were considered by the respondent. The reasons for suspension were clearly articulated, including concerns about interference with the investigation and witnesses. The suspension was precautionary, not punitive, and linked to the duration of the ongoing investigation. The court held that the suspension was not unlawful and th…
Source excerpt
Mojaki v Ngaka Modiri Molema District Municipality and Others (J2596/14) [2014] ZALCJHB 433; (2015) 36 ILJ 1331 (LC) (10 November 2014)
The court found that although the respondents did not strictly comply with the seven-day notice requirement in regulation 6 of the Municipal Regulations, the applicant was given three days to make submissions and was made aware of the intention to suspend him. The applicant's refusal to accept the letter and his persistent stance that the administrator lacked authority undermined his own position. The court held that substantial compliance with the regulations was achieved under the volatile circumstances, and the applicant failed to demonstrate that he could not obtain substantial redress in…
Source excerpt
Explore more
