South Africa Case Law

Inama v Raydian (Pty) Ltd (JS718/2023)

Inama v Raydian (Pty) Ltd (JS718/2023) [2025] ZALCJHB 219 (13 June 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS718/2023

Judge

W Kruger

The applicant's conduct and written communication on 18 August 2023 demonstrated a clear and unambiguous intention to terminate her employment prior to the expiry of the notice period. By revoking her notice period and ceasing to work, she effectively resigned before the date of dismissal as contemplated in the retrenchment letter. The court found that the applicant was not dismissed by the respondent but resigned of her own accord, and therefore her claim for unfair dismissal could not succeed. The special plea was upheld and the applicant's claim dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Resignation
• Retrenchment
• Notice Period
• Compensation
• Costs

Lorren v Raydian (Pty) Ltd (JS718/2023)

Lorren v Raydian (Pty) Ltd (JS718/2023) [2025] ZALCJHB 228 (13 June 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS718/2023

Judge

W Kruger

The Labour Court upheld a special plea after finding the applicant resigned during her notice period, so her unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Resignation
• Retrenchment
• Notice Period
• Section 189 Consultation
• Compensation

MENP Trading Projects CC v Mimed (Pty) Ltd (9 June 2025) (7126/2021)

MENP Trading Projects CC v Mimed (Pty) Ltd (9 June 2025) (7126/2021) [2025] ZALMPPHC 109 (5 June 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

7126/2021

Judge

M.A. Mphahlele

The High Court held that Black Chrome Mine’s liquidation frustrated the capitation-fee part of the SLA, but the defendant still had to give 60 days’ notice.

• Contract Termination
• Damages
• Force Majeure
• Notice Period
• Service Level Agreement
• Contract-termination

Vericred Collections (Pty) Ltd v Moloto and Others (JR892/24)

Vericred Collections (Pty) Ltd v Moloto and Others (JR892/24) [2024] ZALCJHB 497 (12 December 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR892/24

Judge

Mphahlane

The court found that the commissioner committed a reviewable irregularity by refusing the rescission application solely on the basis of alleged proper notice via SMS, without affording the applicant an opportunity to respond to the SMS evidence or considering the applicant’s bona fide defence. The applicant provided a plausible explanation for non-receipt of notice and demonstrated an intention to participate in the CCMA proceedings. The commissioner failed to weigh all relevant factors, including prospects of success, as required by law. On the merits, the court held that the employee’s cond…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Ccma Award
• Rescission Application
• Jurisdiction Of Ccma
• Constructive Dismissal
• Notice Period
• Good Cause Requirement

Mayana v Executive Mayor: Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality and Others - Appeal (CA09/2023)

Mayana v Executive Mayor: Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality and Others - Appeal (CA09/2023) [2023] ZAECMKHC 106 (19 September 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

CA09/2023

Judges

GH Bloem, JGA Laing, ZZ Matebese

Appeal dismissed: a municipal adviser’s contract ended for misconduct without a hearing because no contractual or binding collective-agreement right to one was proven.

• Employment Contract Termination
• Disciplinary Procedure
• Collective Agreement Binding
• Notice Period
• Authority To Terminate
• Employment-contract-termination

Pienrox Investments CC v MEC for Health, Free State Province (4897/2018)

Pienrox Investments CC v MEC for Health, Free State Province (4897/2018) [2022] ZAFSHC 85 (26 April 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4897/2018

Judge

AK RAMLAL

High Court lease dispute over notice, vacancy, and vandalism. The court held the tenant breached the lease by failing to give three months’ notice and awarded damages.

• Lease Termination
• Breach Of Contract
• Consequential Damages
• Notice Period
• Vandalism
• Apportionment Of Damages

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v Nefdt and Others (A156/2020)

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v Nefdt and Others (A156/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 71 (30 March 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A156/2020

Judges

Bozalek, Steyn, Mantame

The court held that PIE applies only to residential occupation, not commercial use. Therefore, the trial court erred in refusing relief against the fifth respondent except for those who claim to reside on the premises. The appropriate order is to evict commercial occupants, with PIE procedures required only for those asserting residential use. The first and third respondents opposed the application without substantive defence and should bear costs for the initial proceedings. The fifth respondent's members were not genuinely opposing but were caught between the appellant and first respondent;…

Source excerpt

• Eviction
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Commercial Leases
• Costs Order
• Notice Period

Jacobs v Communicare and Another (A389/2016)

Jacobs v Communicare and Another (A389/2016) [2017] ZAWCHC 24; 2017 (4) SA 412 (WCC) (14 March 2017)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A389/2016

Judges

Gamble, Kose

High Court appeal in an eviction dispute dismissed, but the court extended the notice to vacate after finding a procedural gap in the municipal-report process.

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Municipal Reporting Obligation
• Emergency Housing
• Notice Period
• Constitutional Right To Housing

Ithala Development Finance Corporation Limited v Warsame (13452/2013)

Ithala Development Finance Corporation Limited v Warsame (13452/2013) [2014] ZAKZPHC 38 (10 June 2014)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

13452/2013

Judge

Mbatha

The High Court ordered eviction after finding no proven oral lease renewal and rejecting estoppel based on vague assurances and continued occupation.

• Eviction
• Oral Lease Agreement
• Estoppel
• Non Variation Clause
• Tacit Relocation
• Notice Period

Morgan v Central University of Technology, Free State (J244/2011)

Morgan v Central University of Technology, Free State (J244/2011) [2012] ZALCJHB 85; [2013] 1 BLLR 52 (LC); (2013) 34 ILJ 938 (LC) (28 August 2012)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J244/2011

Judge

Daniels AJ

The court found that the employment contract required the respondent to provide the applicant with three calendar months' written notice of termination, regardless of whether the termination occurred during the probation period. The contract's language and context supported this interpretation, and the respondent's failure to provide adequate notice constituted a breach. The applicant was not entitled to damages beyond the notice period, as he failed to prove harm after securing alternative employment and did not demonstrate damages beyond the three months. The court held that the applicant's…

Source excerpt

• Breach Of Employment Contract
• Contractual Damages
• Notice Period
• Mitigation Of Damages
• Probation Termination