Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
3 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Labour Law [2024] ZALCJHB 45

Pedra v Wisium SA (Pty) Ltd (JS550/17)

Pedra v Wisium SA (Pty) Ltd (JS550/17) [2024] ZALCJHB 45 (26 January 2024)

Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
JS550/17
Judge
Phehane

The Court found that the applicant's employment contract bound him to all company policies and the rules of the Old Mutual Provident Fund, which stipulated a normal retirement age of 60 for management employees. The evidence established that the retirement policy was accessible and known to the applicant, and that the respondent followed its policy and procedure in effecting the dismissal. The applicant failed to establish any differential treatment or unfair discrimination, and section 187(2)(b) of the LRA applied, rendering the dismissal not automatically unfair. The applicant's version was…

Source excerpt

  • Automatic Unfair Dismissal
  • Retirement Policy
  • Normal Retirement Age
  • Unfair Discrimination
  • Employment Contract
  • Provident Fund Rules
Read case analysis
Labour Law [2022] ZALCJHB 269

Bester v State Information Technology Agency (SOC) Limited (JS 487/20)

Bester v State Information Technology Agency (SOC) Limited (JS 487/20) [2022] ZALCJHB 269; [2023] 4 BLLR 303 (LC) (15 September 2022)

Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
JS 487/20
Judge
GN Moshoana

The court found that SITA had successfully raised the statutory defence under section 187(2)(b) of the LRA by proving that age 60 was the normal retirement age for employees in the government industry and at SITA. The applicant, having reached age 60, was dismissed on fair grounds and not automatically unfairly. The court held that the defences of normal and agreed retirement age are mutually exclusive and only available to the employer. The applicant's reliance on a contractual retirement age of 65 was not relevant to the statutory unfair dismissal claim, but may form the basis of a separate…

Source excerpt

  • Retirement Age
  • Automatically Unfair Dismissal
  • Normal Retirement Age
  • Contractual Claims
  • Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
Read case analysis
Labour Law [2015] ZALCCT 8

Truter v Carecross Health (Pty) Ltd (C956/2013)

Truter v Carecross Health (Pty) Ltd (C956/2013) [2015] ZALCCT 8 (23 January 2015)

Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Case number
C956/2013
Judge
Rabkin-Naicker

The court found that there was no agreed or established normal retirement age of 65 at the respondent company. The board resolution was not communicated to the applicant, nor incorporated into her contract, and no other employee had retired at 65 prior to her dismissal. The company's HR policies were inconsistent and not properly implemented. The evidence did not support the existence of a norm or agreement regarding retirement age. Therefore, the applicant's dismissal was based solely on age and constituted automatically unfair discrimination under section 187(1)(f) of the LRA. The applicant…

Source excerpt

  • Automatically Unfair Dismissal
  • Age Discrimination
  • Normal Retirement Age
  • Section 187 Lra
  • Reinstatement
Read case analysis
Labour Law [2012] ZALCD 13

Hibbert v ARB Electrical Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd (D775/10)

Hibbert v ARB Electrical Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd (D775/10) [2012] ZALCD 13; [2013] 2 BLLR 189 (LC); (2013) 34 ILJ 1190 (LC) (27 September 2012)

Court
Labour Court Durban
Case number
D775/10
Judge
R Lagrange

The court found that the applicant did not agree to retire at age 64; rather, the respondent unilaterally decided to retire him. The respondent failed to establish a normal retirement age applicable to the applicant, as he was exempt from the provident fund and there was no consistent retirement policy for external salespersons. The evidence presented regarding retirement ages of other employees was insufficient to prove a norm. Consequently, the dismissal was automatically unfair in terms of section 187(1)(f) of the LRA and constituted unfair discrimination under section 6 of the EEA. Howeve…

Source excerpt

  • Automatically Unfair Dismissal
  • Age Discrimination
  • Employment Equity Act
  • Normal Retirement Age
  • Compensation
  • Damages
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.