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
Vilakazi v Avragystix (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR114/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 325 (1 August 2025)
Review of a CCMA award dismissed. The Labour Court held the applicant bore the onus in an unfair suspension dispute and found no reviewable irregularity or bias.
Bombela Operating Company (Pty) LtdTD v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR 589/2021) [2025] ZALCJHB 297 (11 July 2025)
The Labour Court reinstated Bombela’s review and set aside an unfair-suspension award, holding the precautionary suspension was fair under Long v SAB.
Fihlani v Port St Johns Local Municipality and Others (1046/2025) [2025] ZAECMHC 66 (8 July 2025)
The High Court held that the municipality unlawfully extended a municipal manager’s precautionary suspension and dismissed its constitutional challenge to the regulation.
Letsoalo v Road Accident Fund and Another (086260/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 663 (26 June 2025)
The court found that the Board's decision to suspend the applicant was a lawful exercise of contractual power under clause 21 of the fixed term contract, not an administrative action subject to PAJA or constitutional reasonableness. The Disciplinary Policy did not apply to the applicant's suspension, as his conditions of employment were determined by the Board and not by policies he approved as CEO. The applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to re-appointment or any imminent irreparable harm, rendering the application for interim interdict unsustainable. The authority of the respon…
Source excerpt
Ramogale v National Education, Health and Allied Workers Union (NEHAWU) and Others (2025/087858) [2025] ZALCJHB 231 (19 June 2025)
The court found that the PEC was empowered by the union constitution to discipline regional office bearers, including the applicant, and that precautionary suspension is expressly provided for and does not, by itself, prevent participation in the Provincial Congress or standing for election. The applicant's interpretation of the constitution was contrived and inconsistent with the text, context, and purpose. The disciplinary charges were broader than the alleged absence of a social media policy, and relevant union policies existed. The application was found to be without merit, an abuse of pr…
Source excerpt
Dr AB Xuma Local Municipality v Delihlazo and Others (Leave to Appeal) (3883/2024) [2025] ZAECMHC 54 (19 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed a municipality’s application for leave to appeal against a ruling that precautionary suspensions were unlawful.
Moqhaka Local Municipality and Another v Tshabalala (JA7/25) [2025] ZALAC 36 (11 June 2025)
The Labour Appeal Court dismissed a section 18 appeal and upheld execution of a reinstatement order pending a Constitutional Court appeal.
Makgata v Fetakgomo Tubatse Local Municipality and Others (686/2025) [2025] ZALMPPHC 108 (3 June 2025)
The court found that the High Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate legality matters arising from employment relations, including the lawfulness of the applicant's suspension and disciplinary proceedings. The Municipality failed to commence the disciplinary hearing within three months as required by regulation 6(6)(a), since the charges were not read out to the applicant within the prescribed period. The Municipality's procedural errors, including improper venue and insufficient notice, were its own fault and did not justify blaming the applicant. The suspension therefore lapsed automatically…
Source excerpt
Sibanyoni v Speaker of City of Mbombela (2025/0209203) [2025] ZALCJHB 195 (22 May 2025)
Urgent final relief over a precautionary suspension failed after the Labour Court found the application was launched too late and lacked urgency.
Mbuyisa v HOD: Free State Department of Social Development and Others (3243/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 79 (13 March 2025)
The court held that the applicant's precautionary suspension was not an administrative action requiring judicial review and setting aside. The employment relationship between the applicant and the respondents was contractual and did not fall within the scope of administrative action as defined by the Constitution and relevant case law. The applicant's challenge did not raise a genuine constitutional issue, and the Biowatch-rule did not apply. The application for leave to appeal had no reasonable prospects of success, and the costs order was justified given the absence of a constitutional issu…
Source excerpt
Explore more
