South Africa Case Law

Greater Taung Local Municipality v Office of the Public Protector and Others (89658/2018)

Greater Taung Local Municipality v Office of the Public Protector and Others (89658/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 776 (1 August 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

89658/2018

Judge

Kooverjie

The court found that Mr Bloem’s answering affidavit should be condoned due to his reasonable explanation for delay and the interests of justice. The complaint to the Public Protector was lodged within the statutory period, as evidenced by meetings in April and September 2014. The court rejected the Municipality’s argument that the protected disclosure complaint was an afterthought, finding a clear link between Mr Bloem’s whistleblowing and his dismissal. The Public Protector had jurisdiction to investigate the complaint under Section 182(1) of the Constitution and the Protected Disclosure Act…

Source excerpt

• Protected Disclosure Act
• Jurisdiction Of Public Protector
• Unfair Dismissal
• Remedial Action
• Condonation
• Occupational Detriment

Marais v Renault South Africa (Pty) Ltd (84098/2019)

Marais v Renault South Africa (Pty) Ltd (84098/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 717 (15 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

84098/2019

Judge

S Potterill

The High Court dismissed a whistleblower and delict claim by a former Renault employee, finding no protected disclosures, no proven damages, and awarding punitive costs.

• Protected Disclosure Act
• Unfair Dismissal
• Occupational Detriment
• Action Injuria
• Vicarious Liability
• Quantum Of Damages

Docrat v University of Cape Town (2025/093808)

Docrat v University of Cape Town (2025/093808) [2025] ZALCCT 49 (1 July 2025)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

2025/093808

Judge

M T M Phehane

The application fails to meet the requirements for urgency. The applicant was aware of the impending demotion as early as July and August 2024 but delayed seeking relief. He has not demonstrated why he will not obtain substantial redress through the ordinary course of proceedings before the CCMA and Labour Court. The restructuring process is longstanding and affects many employees. The applicant has alternative remedies available and has not justified the truncated timeframes or why his matter should be prioritised. The Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to dictate the composition of the…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Labour Practice
• Protected Disclosure
• Occupational Detriment
• Urgent Interdict
• Internal Grievance
• Demotion

Letakgomo v Johnson Matthey (Pty) Ltd (J683/23)

Letakgomo v Johnson Matthey (Pty) Ltd (J683/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 240 (31 May 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J683/23

Judge

G N Moshoana

The court found that the applicant did not make a disclosure within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act, as his report concerned criminal conduct not attributable to the employer or its employees. Without a protected disclosure, the disciplinary hearing could not be considered an occupational detriment, and the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section 188A(11) of the Labour Relations Act were not met. The court further held that the holding of a disciplinary hearing is not, in itself, an occupational detriment, and that Rule 34(9) of the CCMA Rules, which compels the employer…

Source excerpt

• Protected Disclosure Act
• Occupational Detriment
• Disciplinary Hearing
• Section 188a Inquiry
• Costs Award

Ramela v Cooper N.O and Others (2025/055130)

Ramela v Cooper N.O and Others (2025/055130) [2025] ZAWCHC 193 (5 May 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2025/055130

Judge

Lekhuleni

Urgent PDA application dismissed: the court held the alleged disclosures were already known, not made in good faith, and did not justify interdicting discipline.

• Protected Disclosure
• Occupational Detriment
• Urgency In Applications
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Good Faith Requirement
• Protected-disclosures-act

National Commissioner Department of Correctional Services v Nxele and Another (DA 04/2023)

National Commissioner Department of Correctional Services v Nxele and Another (DA 04/2023) [2025] ZALAC 9; [2025] 5 BLLR 472 (LAC) (17 February 2025)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

DA04/2023

Judges

Savage ADJP, Van Niekerk JA, Govindjee AJA

The Labour Appeal Court upheld a ruling converting disciplinary proceedings into a section 188A(11) inquiry after finding a good-faith protected-disclosure basis.

• Protected Disclosure
• Occupational Detriment
• Section 188a Inquiry
• Lis Alibi Pendens
• Unfair Suspension
• Protected-disclosures

Sambogo and Another v Alfa Laval SA (Pty) Ltd (2024/031166)

Sambogo and Another v Alfa Laval SA (Pty) Ltd (2024/031166) [2025] ZAEQC 2 (2 January 2025)

Court

Equality Court

Case number

2024/031166

Judge

Fisher

The Equality Court held that workplace discrimination and retaliation complaints were more appropriately dealt with by the Labour Court and removed the matter.

• Employment Equity Act
• Promotion Of Equality And Prevention Of Unfair Discrimination Act
• Jurisdictional Challenge
• Protected Disclosure
• Sexual Harassment
• Occupational Detriment

Phosa v Ekurhuleni Municipality (J14/22)

Phosa v Ekurhuleni Municipality (J14/22) [2024] ZALCJHB 470 (28 November 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J14/22

Judge

M Makhura

The court found that the plaintiff's dismissal was causally linked to her protected disclosure regarding procurement irregularities. The evidence showed that after making the disclosure and lodging a grievance, the plaintiff was subjected to occupational detriment, including unwarranted disciplinary action and ultimately dismissal. The defendant's stated reasons for dismissal—incapacity and poor performance—were found to be contrived and unsupported by proper procedure. The employer failed to investigate the allegations raised in the protected disclosure and did not follow the contractual or…

Source excerpt

• Automatically Unfair Dismissal
• Protected Disclosure
• Procurement Irregularities
• Occupational Detriment
• Breach Of Contract
• Remedies And Compensation

NUMSA obo Mbali v Road Accident Fund and Another (J848/24)

NUMSA obo Mbali v Road Accident Fund and Another (J848/24) [2024] ZALCJHB 541 (30 August 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J848/24

Judge

Baloyi

The Labour Court interdicted an internal disciplinary hearing, finding a prima facie protected disclosure and ordering a section 188A(11) inquiry instead.

• Protected Disclosure
• Occupational Detriment
• Section 188a Inquiry
• Disciplinary Hearing Interdict
• Good Faith Requirement
• Protected-disclosure

Naicker and Others v Muswaba and Others (C194/2024)

Naicker and Others v Muswaba and Others (C194/2024) [2024] ZALCCT 20 (31 May 2024)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C194/2024

Judge

R Lagrange

The court found that the applicants demonstrated a prima facie right to occupy the premises rent-free as part of their employment, though this was open to doubt and subject to pending bargaining council disputes. The urgency was not self-created, as the applicants acted promptly upon receiving unequivocal notice of eviction. The respondents' intention to proceed with eviction before the contractual disputes were resolved would undermine the statutory dispute resolution process and cause irreparable harm to the applicants and their families. The court held that the appropriate remedy was to gr…

Source excerpt

• Urgent Interdict
• Protected Disclosure Act
• Occupational Detriment
• Employment Contract Variation
• Eviction Proceedings
• Bargaining Council Dispute