South Africa Case Law

Rustenburg Platinum Mines Limited v Kelahlile and Others (M550/21)

Rustenburg Platinum Mines Limited v Kelahlile and Others (M550/21) [2024] ZANWHC 298 (5 December 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M550/21

Judge

Reddy

The applicant established a clear right to conduct its business under a Precious Metals Refinery License. However, the evidence showed that the unlawful conduct by the respondents occurred only on 3 and 4 August 2021, with no recurrence since then. The applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of future harm, as required for a final interdict. The timeline of events and the absence of further incidents undermined the claim of ongoing threat. Additionally, the applicant had alternative remedies available, including criminal proceedings. The court exercised its discretion and fo…

Source excerpt

• Final Interdict
• Hostage Situation
• Protest Action
• Alternative Remedy
• Balance Of Convenience

CCI South Africa (Pty) Ltd v African National Congress Youth League and Others (DA31/22)

CCI South Africa (Pty) Ltd v African National Congress Youth League and Others (DA31/22) [2024] ZALAC 7; [2024] 5 BLLR 435 (LAC); (2024) 45 ILJ 969 (LAC) (6 March 2024)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

DA31/22

Judges

Waglay JP, Mlambo JA, Malindi AJA

The Labour Appeal Court dismissed a moot appeal over a proposed protest, holding the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction because the action involved a political party, not employees or a union.

• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Regulation Of Gatherings Act
• Mootness
• Strike Definition
• Protest Action
• Role Of Political Parties In Labour Disputes

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v The South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU) and Another (J334/22)

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v The South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU) and Another (J334/22) [2022] ZALCJHB 192 (26 July 2022)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J334/22

Judge

G N Moshoana

The court found that there was no evidence of a strike action or conduct in furtherance of a strike action at the time of hearing. The applicant failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of injury, as its fears were speculative and unsupported by concrete evidence. The protest action did not amount to a strike, and the voluminous list of alleged participants was inappropriate, as there was no proof linking individual respondents to unlawful acts. Confirming the order would impute unlawful conduct without evidence. The court held that its interdictory powers could not be invoked in the abs…

Source excerpt

• Interdictory Relief
• Unprotected Strike
• Reasonable Apprehension Of Injury
• Collective Agreement
• Protest Action

Congress of South African Trade Unions and Another v Business Unity of South Africa and Another (JA97/2019)

Congress of South African Trade Unions and Another v Business Unity of South Africa and Another (JA97/2019) [2020] ZALAC 51; (2021) 42 ILJ 490 (LAC); [2021] 4 BLLR 343 (LAC) (27 November 2020)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA97/2019

Judges

Davis, Jappie, Kathree-Setiloane

The Labour Appeal Court held that section 77 of the Labour Relations Act does not prescribe any time limit for the issuing of a notice of protest action under paragraph (d), nor does it restrict the number of such notices that may be issued following a single referral under section 77(1)(b). The Court found that the statutory framework is designed to vindicate constitutional rights to protest and fair labour practices, and that reading in a time limit or restricting the number of notices would unduly limit these rights. The Court rejected the respondent's argument that the principle of expedi…

Source excerpt

• Protest Action
• Section 77 Lra
• Statutory Interpretation
• Constitutional Rights
• Notice Requirements

Business Unity South Africa v Congress of South African Trade Unions and Others (J1908/19)

Business Unity South Africa v Congress of South African Trade Unions and Others (J1908/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 252; [2020] 1 BLLR 38 (LC); (2020) 41 ILJ 174 (LC) (1 October 2019)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1908/19

Judge

Rabkin-Naicker

The court found that while the requirements of section 77(1)(c) had been met, the issuing of the section 77(1)(d) notice was unduly delayed, and multiple notices were improperly issued based on a single referral. Section 77 must be interpreted to require that a section 77(1)(d) notice is issued within a reasonable period after the completion of the section 77(1)(c) process. The procedural safeguards in section 77 are designed to ensure the effective resolution of disputes and to balance the interests of all social partners, including the public. The delay and repeated notices undermined the r…

Source excerpt

• Protest Action
• Section 77 Lra
• Jurisdictional Facts
• Reasonable Time Requirement
• Interdict
• Protected Strike

Solidarity Trade Union v National Economic Development and Development Council ('NEDLAC') and Others (2018/32607)

Solidarity Trade Union v National Economic Development and Development Council ('NEDLAC') and Others (2018/32607) [2018] ZAGPJHC 574 (14 September 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2018/32607

Judge

L Adams

The High Court reviewed and set aside NEDLAC’s refusal to consider Solidarity’s section 77 notice about ESOPs, holding NEDLAC had jurisdiction to do so.

• Protest Action
• Jurisdiction Of Nedlac
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Employee Share Ownership Plans
• Procedural Fairness
• Protected Strike Action

Pitsiladi NO and Others v Ngqisha and Others (1504/2018)

Pitsiladi NO and Others v Ngqisha and Others (1504/2018) [2018] ZAECPEHC 41 (7 August 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

1504/2018

Judge

G G Goosen

The court granted a final interdict against EFF members after finding they unlawfully disrupted Prestons Liquor Stores and threatened further interference.

• Final Interdict
• Unlawful Interference With Business
• Labour Relations Act
• Consumer Protection Act
• Protest Action
• Injunctive Relief

Concerned Association of Parents and Others for Tertiary Education at Universities v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University and Another (4976/2016)

Concerned Association of Parents and Others for Tertiary Education at Universities v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University and Another (4976/2016) [2016] ZAECGHC 136 (10 November 2016)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

4976/2016

Judge

M L Beard

Urgent application dismissed where parents sought to compel NMMU to resume classes amid #FeesMustFall protests; court found the order too broad and inequitable.

• Specific Performance
• Mandatory Interdict
• Judicial Discretion
• University Governance
• Fiduciary Duties
• Protest Action

University of Cape Town v Davids and Others (2648/2016)

University of Cape Town v Davids and Others (2648/2016) [2016] ZAWCHC 56; [2016] 3 All SA 333 (WCC) (11 May 2016)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2648/2016

Judge

R Allie

The court found that the applicant established a clear right to protect its property and ensure a safe environment for students and staff. The respondents' conduct during protest action, including destruction of property, assault, and obstruction, constituted actual injury and justified a reasonable apprehension of future harm. The court held that criminal prosecution, disciplinary action, and damages were inadequate alternative remedies. The respondents' constitutional rights under section 17 are qualified by the requirement of peaceful protest and cannot justify unlawful conduct. The court…

Source excerpt

• Final Interdict
• Section 17 Rights
• Protest Action
• Property Rights
• Reasonable Apprehension Of Harm
• Alternative Remedy

NUMSA and others v Fibre Flair CC T/A Kango Canopies (JA56/99)

NUMSA and others v Fibre Flair CC T/A Kango Canopies (JA56/99) [2000] ZALAC 3 (17 March 2000)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA56/99

Judges

N.P. Willis, R.M.M Zondo, J.H. Conradie

The Labour Appeal Court held that section 193(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act grants the Labour Court a true discretion regarding the date of reinstatement following an unfair dismissal. The discretion is not limited to ordering reinstatement from the date of dismissal and may be exercised to select any appropriate date thereafter. The appellate court found no evidence that the Labour Court exercised its discretion capriciously, on a wrong principle, in a biased manner, or without substantial reasons. The lower court's decision to limit reinstatement as a mark of disapproval for the employe…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Retrospective Reinstatement
• Judicial Discretion
• Protest Action
• Disciplinary Procedure