South Africa Case Law

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

Truworths Limited v Peter (CA15/2024)

Truworths Limited v Peter (CA15/2024) [2025] ZALAC 37 (5 June 2025)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

CA15/2024

Judges

Savage JA, Musi, Waglay AJA

The Labour Appeal Court held that an automatically unfair dismissal claim based on protected disclosure could not be adjudicated without prior conciliation.

• Protected Disclosure
• Automatically Unfair Dismissal
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Conciliation Requirement
• Special Plea
• Condonation

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

Khan v South African Police Service and Others (121530/2024)

Khan v South African Police Service and Others (121530/2024) [2024] ZALCJHB 488 (4 December 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

121530/2024

Judge

L Vukeya

The Labour Court converted an urgent challenge to SAPS’s expeditious discipline into a formal disciplinary hearing under regulations 8 and 11.

• Expeditious Disciplinary Process
• Protected Disclosure
• Pre Dismissal Arbitration
• Collective Agreement
• Natural Justice
• Urgent Interdict

O'Hara v Parliament of South Africa and Another (C 2024-125867)

O'Hara v Parliament of South Africa and Another (C 2024-125867) [2024] ZALCCT 71 (2 December 2024)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C 2024-125867

Judge

Whitcher

The Labour Court dismissed an urgent review of a disciplinary chairperson’s refusal to recuse himself, finding no grave injustice or exceptional grounds for intervention.

• Recusal Of Presiding Officer
• Institutional Bias
• Disciplinary Hearing Review
• Labour Relations Act Section 158
• Exceptional Intervention
• Protected Disclosure

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

Department of Correctional Services v General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JA11/2023)

Department of Correctional Services v General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JA11/2023) [2024] ZALAC 59; [2025] 2 BLLR 105 (LAC); (2025) 46 ILJ 310 (LAC) (18 November 2024)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA 11/2023

Judges

Savage ADJP, Van Niekerk JA, Govindjee AJA

The Labour Appeal Court refused condonation for a late notice of appeal and dismissed a challenge to the reinstatement of a review, finding the dispute moot and awarding punitive costs.

• Review Application
• Practice Manual Clauses
• Condonation
• Unfair Labour Practice
• Protected Disclosure
• Costs Award

Sorrell v Petroplan Sub-Saharan Africa (Pty) Ltd (CA02/23)

Sorrell v Petroplan Sub-Saharan Africa (Pty) Ltd (CA02/23) [2024] ZALCCT 45 (4 October 2024)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

CA 02/2023

Judges

Savage, Mlambo, Davis

The Labour Appeal Court held that the Labour Court correctly found it lacked territorial jurisdiction over the appellant's claims. The appellant's workplace, as defined in the Independent Contractor Agreement and confirmed by his own evidence, was Mozambique. The fact that the respondent's principal place of business is South Africa and that the appellant worked from home due to delays and visa issues did not alter the contractual and factual position that the services were to be rendered in Mozambique. The Court reaffirmed that jurisdiction is determined by the location of the physical workp…

Source excerpt

• Territorial Jurisdiction
• Temporary Employment Services
• Protected Disclosure
• Unfair Dismissal
• Contractual Damages