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

Sethibelo v General Public Service Sector Bargaining Council and Others (JR 237/21)

Sethibelo v General Public Service Sector Bargaining Council and Others (JR 237/21) [2025] ZALCJHB 250 (26 June 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR 237/21

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

The court found that the applicant's dismissal was procedurally unfair due to significant defects in the disciplinary process. The employer failed to formally revoke the applicant's approved leave, and the chairperson of the disciplinary hearing proceeded on the incorrect assumption that no leave had been granted. The evidence showed that the applicant was on authorised leave and that there was an agreement to postpone the hearing, which was not disputed. The Arbitrator failed to consider these facts and thus erred in finding the dismissal procedurally fair. However, the court upheld the Arbi…

Source excerpt

• Procedural Fairness
• Protected Disclosure Act
• Disciplinary Hearing
• Compensation For Unfair Dismissal
• Contractual Rights
• Audi Alteram Partem

Appolus and Others v Naledi Local Municipality and Others (UM199/2023)

Appolus and Others v Naledi Local Municipality and Others (UM199/2023) [2025] ZANWHC 97 (6 June 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

UM199/2023

Judge

J.T. Djaje

The court found that the respondents had complied with the requirements for prosecuting the section 18(4) appeal by filing the notice of appeal and corresponding with the Judge President's office, and that the appeal was pending. As a result, the execution of the judgments in question was suspended in terms of section 18(1) of the Superior Courts Act, and the relief sought by the applicants could not be granted. Regarding the protected disclosure claim, the court held that the first applicant failed to establish a causal link between his disclosure and the disciplinary proceedings, which were…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Municipal Manager Appointment
• Protected Disclosure Act
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Section 18 Superior Courts Act

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

Schultz v Congregation of the Dutch Reformed Church Horizon North and Others (JS725/2023)

Schultz v Congregation of the Dutch Reformed Church Horizon North and Others (JS725/2023) [2024] ZALCJHB 391 (7 October 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS 725/23

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

The Labour Court ruled that, in light of the binding authority of Intervalve, conciliation is an indispensable jurisdictional precondition for unfair dismissal disputes. Only the Congregation was cited and participated in the CCMA proceedings; the other church structures were not properly cited or conciliated. The fact that these entities may have attended or were aware of the proceedings is irrelevant for jurisdiction. The applicant's joinder application in respect of the second to fifth respondents is incompetent and must be dismissed. The correct approach is to substitute the proper employ…

Source excerpt

• Joinder Of Parties
• Automatically Unfair Dismissal
• Protected Disclosure Act
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Conciliation Requirement

Santam LTD v Pedlar (2022/010346)

Santam LTD v Pedlar (2022/010346) [2024] ZAGPJHC 756 (31 July 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/010346

Judge

H F Oosthuizen

The court found that the first special plea, although referencing the Protected Disclosures Act and SLAPP suit principles, failed to plead the necessary facts to sustain a defence under the Act. The plea did not allege a protected disclosure as defined by the statute, nor did it make clear how the defendant's conduct fell within the statutory protection. The second and third special pleas were found to be mere lists of grievances and legislative references, without constituting substantive, self-contained defences capable of quashing or delaying the action. The court held that the first speci…

Source excerpt

• Exception To Plea
• Protected Disclosure Act
• Slapp Suit Defence
• Abuse Of Process
• Settlement Agreement
• Breach Of Contract

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

Mtweta v Transnet Freight Rail and Operating Division of Transnet (SOC) Limited (J 58/2024)

Mtweta v Transnet Freight Rail and Operating Division of Transnet (SOC) Limited (J 58/2024) [2024] ZALCJHB 17 (29 January 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J 58/2024

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

Urgent labour application to stop a disciplinary hearing was struck off for lack of urgency and self-created delay.

• Protected Disclosure Act
• Urgent Interdict
• Section 188a Lra
• Occupational Detriment
• Unfair Labour Practice
• Urgent-interdict

Mabula v Knysna Municipality (C955/2015)

Mabula v Knysna Municipality (C955/2015) [2023] ZALCCT 52; [2023] 12 BLLR 1301 (LC) (24 August 2023)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C955/2015

Judge

Lagrange

The court found that the applicant's referral was automatically deemed withdrawn in November 2016 due to five years of inactivity, as per clause 16 of the Labour Court Practice Manual. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory and specific explanation for the delay, relying on generalized claims of depression and fear without supporting evidence. The alleged occupational detriment was not substantiated, as no disciplinary action was ever instituted, only an investigation which was later abandoned. The interests of justice did not warrant reinstatement, given the prejudice to the responde…

Source excerpt

• Protected Disclosure Act
• Condonation
• Unfair Labour Practice
• Occupational Detriment
• Practice Manual Archiving
• Interest Of Justice