South Africa Case Law

Mthimkulu v Head of Department: Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development and Another (867/2023)

Mthimkulu v Head of Department: Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development and Another (867/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 123 (17 April 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

867/2023

Judge

Naidoo

Urgent contempt application dismissed after the court found no proof of wilful or bad-faith non-compliance with a prior order on public-service appointment processing.

• Contempt Of Court
• Public Service Employment
• Urgent Interdict
• Compliance With Court Orders
• Contempt-of-court
• Urgent-applications

South African Policing Union and Others v Minister of Police and Others (66522/2020)

South African Policing Union and Others v Minister of Police and Others (66522/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 10 (8 January 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

66522/2020

Judge

Minnaar

The court held that section 7(7) of the Intelligence Services Oversight Act does not create a statutory precondition requiring the Inspector General of Intelligence to submit a report to the Minister before the National Commissioner may suspend employees. The oversight functions of the IGI are distinct from the employer's disciplinary powers. The National Commissioner, as employer and accounting officer, is empowered and obliged by the SAPS Act, Discipline Regulations, and the PFMA to act on allegations of misconduct, including procurement irregularities, without awaiting the IGI's report or…

Source excerpt

• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Precautionary Suspension
• Statutory Interpretation
• Public Service Employment
• Intelligence Services Oversight
• Procurement Irregularities

Gcani v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (PR170/16)

Gcani v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (PR170/16) [2018] ZALCPE 24; (2019) 40 ILJ 358 (LC) (14 September 2018)

Court

Labour Court Port Elizabeth

Case number

PR170/16

Judge

S Snyman

The Labour Court held that the applicant's review application was competent under section 158(1)(h) of the LRA, as the refusal to reinstate following deemed dismissal for desertion constitutes the exercise of legislated public power. However, the application was brought after an excessive and unreasonable delay of 26 months, with no proper or acceptable explanation for most of the delay. The applicant's decision to pursue an unfair dismissal dispute before the bargaining council, and subsequent inactivity, did not justify the delay. The Court found that the factual findings made by the arbitr…

Source excerpt

• Deemed Dismissal
• Condonation For Late Filing
• Legality Review
• Public Service Employment
• Jurisdiction Of Bargaining Council

MEC of the Western Cape Provincial Government Health Department v Coetzee and Others (C276/17)

MEC of the Western Cape Provincial Government Health Department v Coetzee and Others (C276/17) [2017] ZALCCT 67 (30 November 2017)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C276/17

Judge

GN Moshoana

The court held that the commissioner correctly identified and resolved the principal issue: whether Coetzee and others were employed or engaged in the public health sector and thus subject to the collective agreement. The statutory definitions in the LRA were applied, and the factual matrix established that Coetzee and others performed duties at provincial hospitals under the applicant's control. The court found that the commissioner’s reasoning and application of the law were reasonable and that any alleged error of law was immaterial to the outcome. The review test is one of reasonableness,…

Source excerpt

• Demarcation Award
• Collective Agreement Interpretation
• Employee Definition
• Public Service Employment
• Prescribed Rate Of Interest
• Costs Award

Booysen v National Head of the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation and Another (9799/2015)

Booysen v National Head of the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation and Another (9799/2015) [2015] ZAKZDHC 86 (18 November 2015)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

9799/2015

Judge

Van Zyl

High Court set aside the precautionary suspension of a senior police officer, holding that the decision was irrational and unlawful on the principle of legality.

• Precautionary Suspension
• Principle Of Legality
• Public Service Employment
• Unlawful Suspension
• Constitutional Right To Dignity
• Judicial Review

Zulu v MEC for the Department of Transport, KwaZulu-Natal (1901/2011)

Zulu v MEC for the Department of Transport, KwaZulu-Natal (1901/2011) [2014] ZAKZPHC 57 (6 November 2014)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

1901/2011

Judge

Olsen

The Supreme Court of Appeal in Thomas v The Minister of Defence clarified that for the purposes of COIDA, departments within the same sphere of government are separate employers. The plaintiff was employed by the provincial Department of Health, not by the Department of Transport, KwaZulu-Natal. Therefore, section 35(1) of COIDA does not bar her claim against the defendant. The reasoning in Thomas is dispositive and binding, and the defendant's special plea must be dismissed. Arguments based on previous interpretations of the Public Service Act and Labour Relations Act do not alter the outcom…

Source excerpt

• Compensation For Occupational Injuries
• Special Plea
• Public Service Employment
• Departmental Liability

Thomas v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans (506/2013)

Thomas v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans (506/2013) [2014] ZASCA 109; 2015 (1) SA 253 (SCA) (11 September 2014)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

506/2013

Judges

Mpati, Lewis, Cachalia, Mbha, Gorven

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that for the purposes of s 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, the State is not regarded as a single employer. Instead, each head of department within the national and provincial spheres of government is considered a separate employer. The COIDA, read with the Public Service Act and the Constitution, envisages multiple employers within the State, including provincial departments and legislative bodies. Dr Thomas was employed by the Western Cape Provincial Department of Health, not by the State as a single entity. Therefore, s…

Source excerpt

• Compensation For Occupational Injuries And Diseases Act
• State Liability
• Special Plea
• Public Service Employment
• Statutory Interpretation

Dlamini v Minister of Defence and Others (7669/2012)

Dlamini v Minister of Defence and Others (7669/2012) [2012] ZAGPPHC 337 (14 December 2012)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

7669/2012

Judge

Hiemstra

The court held that the refusal to reinstate the applicant does not constitute administrative action under PAJA, as established by Constitutional Court precedent. The applicant's claim for unfair labour practice was not supported by the facts or pursued through the prescribed procedures. Furthermore, the claim was time-barred under the Prescription Act, as the applicant failed to initiate proceedings within three years of his conviction being set aside. The application was accordingly dismissed with costs.

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Unfair Labour Practice
• Prescription Act
• Termination Of Employment
• Public Service Employment

SAPU v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (J2653/12)

SAPU v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (J2653/12) [2012] ZALCJHB 118 (18 October 2012)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2653/12

Judge

Steenkamp

The applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought. The minutes of the SSSBC meeting on 20 June 2012 did not evidence any agreement restricting SAPS's recruitment powers. Resolution 2 of 2009 did not apply, as the recruitment of security guards did not amount to restructuring, changes in the organisation of work, or changes to recruitment procedures. SAPS fulfilled its duty to consult through several meetings, providing information, considering proposals, and furnishing reasons for its decisions. The balance of convenience strongly favoured the respondents, as the inab…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Collective Agreement Consultation
• Public Service Employment
• Urgency Requirements

South African Police Services v Police and Prison Civil Rights Union and Another (JA4/08)

South African Police Services v Police and Prison Civil Rights Union and Another (JA4/08) [2010] ZALAC 17; [2010] 12 BLLR 1263 (LAC) ; (2010) 31 ILJ 2844 (LAC) (3 September 2010)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA4/08

Judges

Waglay, Khampepe, Tlaletsi

The Labour Appeal Court held that only SAPS members, or deemed members, were barred from striking as part of the essential policing service.

• Essential Service Designation
• Right To Strike Limitation
• Interpretation Of Lra
• Public Service Employment
• Constitutional Rights Limitation
• Essential-services