South Africa Case Law

Stein v Minister of Education and Training and Others (J415/20)

Stein v Minister of Education and Training and Others (J415/20) [2021] ZALCJHB 420 (15 November 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J415/20

Judge

Mangena

The court found that the employer was justified in deducting amounts paid to the applicant for days he did not work, as these constituted overpayments made in error. Section 34(5) of the BCEA permits recovery of such overpayments without employee consent. The applicant failed to submit leave forms or provide evidence that he was at work, and the employer followed due process by notifying him of the deductions. The applicant's challenge to the jurisdiction was dismissed, and the respondent's factual version prevailed due to the applicant's failure to address the evidence. The application for r…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Salary Deduction
• Basic Conditions Of Employment Act
• Leave Without Pay
• Overpayment Recovery

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others v Tshifhango and Another (JA63/2017)

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others v Tshifhango and Another (JA63/2017) [2019] ZALAC 32; [2019] 7 BLLR 627 (LAC); (2019) 40 ILJ 1773 (LAC) (13 March 2019)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA63/2017

Judges

Waglay JP, Phatshoane ADJP, Savage AJA

Section 38(1)(a) of the Public Service Act is clear and unambiguous: the executive authority is obliged to correct an incorrect salary level, scale or reward awarded to an employee, with effect from the date on which it commenced, and the provision does not require consultation or a hearing prior to correction. The Labour Court erred in interpreting the principle of legality as imposing a procedural fairness requirement where the statute is silent. The disputes of fact regarding whether the respondents were correctly or incorrectly graded could not be resolved on the papers and should have be…

Source excerpt

• Salary Downgrade
• Public Service Act
• Procedural Fairness
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Overpayment Recovery

Sekhute and Others v Ekhuruleni Housing Company SOC (J1862/17)

Sekhute and Others v Ekhuruleni Housing Company SOC (J1862/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 318 (5 September 2017)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1862/17

Judge

Lagrange

Urgent Labour Court application over salary deductions for alleged payroll overpayments was dismissed. The court held section 34(5) of the BCEA permitted recovery without consent.

• Salary Deductions
• Overpayment Recovery
• Remuneration Policy
• Basic Conditions Of Employment Act
• Prima Facie Right
• Unjust Enrichment

Jonker v Wireless Payments Systems CC (J1137/09)

Jonker v Wireless Payments Systems CC (J1137/09) [2009] ZALC 150; (2010) 31 ILJ 381 (LC) (23 June 2009)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

J1137/09

Judge

Molahlehi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate urgency, as financial hardship alone does not constitute grounds for urgent relief unless exceptional circumstances are present. The applicant did not show that the hardship was incapable of being addressed through ordinary proceedings. Furthermore, the deduction was made to recover an overpayment resulting from an administrative error, which is permitted under section 34(5) of the BCEA. The applicant was aware of the deduction and its reason, and there was no evidence of unlawfulness or breach of her rights. Consequently, the applicati…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Salary Deduction
• Basic Conditions Of Employment Act
• Urgency Requirements
• Overpayment Recovery

Valasce v Wireless Payment Systems CC (J1137/09)

Valasce v Wireless Payment Systems CC (J1137/09) [2009] ZALCJHB 96 (23 June 2009)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1137/09

Judge

Molahlehi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency, as financial hardship alone does not constitute grounds for urgent relief unless exceptional circumstances are present. The applicant did not demonstrate that the hardship was incapable of being addressed through ordinary proceedings. Furthermore, the deduction was made to recover an overpayment resulting from an administrative error, which is permitted under section 34(5) of the BCEA. The applicant was aware of the deduction and its basis, as evidenced by her own correspondence. The court concluded that no special circumstances…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Salary Deduction
• Basic Conditions Of Employment Act
• Urgency Requirements
• Overpayment Recovery

Pension Fund of the Democratic Nursing Organisation of South Africa v Botha (A441/07)

Pension Fund of the Democratic Nursing Organisation of South Africa v Botha (A441/07) [2009] ZAGPPHC 193 (27 May 2009)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A441/07

Judges

Ledwaba, Ebersohn

The High Court held that a pension fund’s claim to recover an overpayment was prescribed because it failed to exercise reasonable care to detect the error earlier.

• Prescription Act
• Overpayment Recovery
• Burden Of Proof
• Fiduciary Duty
• Prescription
• Overpayment-recovery

Nehawu and Others v Minister of Public Service and Administration and Others (J 2372/08)

Nehawu and Others v Minister of Public Service and Administration and Others (J 2372/08) [2008] ZALC 150 (15 November 2008)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

J 2372/08

Judge

Ngalwana

The court found that the applicants had established a prima facie right to prevent deductions from their members' remuneration pending the resolution of the dispute at the PHWSBC. The deductions were not authorised by law or agreement and caused irreparable harm to the affected employees. The urgency of the matter was justified given the financial prejudice suffered by the applicants' members. The court dispensed with the normal rules and granted the interim interdict, restraining the respondents from making further deductions and ordering repayment of any amounts already deducted.

Source excerpt

• Occupational Specific Dispensation
• Urgent Interdict
• Remuneration Deductions
• Collective Agreement
• Overpayment Recovery

Commissioner for Inland Revenue v Van der Merwe and Others (249/99)

Commissioner for Inland Revenue v Van der Merwe and Others (249/99) [2001] ZASCA 10; [2001] 3 All SA 53 (A); 2001 (3) SA 1 (SCA) (9 March 2001)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

249/99

Judges

Hefer, Harms, Cameron, Brand, Nugent

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the liquidation of a class of insurance business under the Insurance Act does not create a separate legal entity for tax purposes. Both assets and liabilities of the business in liquidation remain those of the company, with only control and administration passing to the liquidator. Consequently, all income earned during liquidation accrues to the company, which remains the taxpayer under the Income Tax Act. The overpayment of provisional tax, although calculated with reference to the short term business, was not earmarked as an asset of that business and…

Source excerpt

• Income Tax Liability
• Insurance Company Liquidation
• Asset Segregation
• Overpayment Recovery

Sibeko v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (J5978/00)

Sibeko v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (J5978/00) [2001] ZALC 17 (2 February 2001)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

J5978/00

Judge

E Revelas

The Labour Court dismissed an urgent application to stop salary recovery after the applicant had been overpaid in error, holding the employer could correct the amount.

• Salary Deduction
• Overpayment Recovery
• Basic Conditions Of Employment Act
• Urgent Interdict
• Salary-deduction
• Overpayment-recovery