South Africa Case Law

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

Commercial Stevedoring Agricultural and Allied Workers' Union and Others v Oak Valley Estates (Pty) Ltd and Another (CCT 301/20)

Commercial Stevedoring Agricultural and Allied Workers' Union and Others v Oak Valley Estates (Pty) Ltd and Another (CCT 301/20) [2022] ZACC 7; [2022] 6 BLLR 487 (CC); 2022 (7) BCLR 787 (CC); 2022 (5) SA 18 (CC) (1 March 2022)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 301/20

Judges

Madlanga, Madondo, Majiedt, Pillay, Rogers, Theron, Tlaletsi, Tshiqi

The Constitutional Court held that for interdictory relief to be competently granted against individuals participating in a protected strike, there must be a factual link between each respondent and the actual or threatened unlawful conduct. Mere participation in a strike where unlawful conduct occurs does not suffice to justify interdicting all participants. The Court found that Oak Valley failed to establish such a link for the majority of the applicants, except for Mr Magaba (23rd applicant) and CSAAWU, who were specifically linked to unlawful conduct or threats. The appeal was upheld in p…

Source excerpt

• Final Interdict
• Protected Strike
• Link Requirement For Interdict
• Reasonable Apprehension Of Injury
• Section 23 Constitution
• Picketing Rules

Chen and Another v China Express SA (Pty) Ltd and Others (11821/07)

Chen and Another v China Express SA (Pty) Ltd and Others (11821/07) [2008] ZAGPHC 348 (17 June 2008)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

11821/07

Judge

S Potterill

The High Court made final a rule nisi interdicting respondents from alleging fraud or publishing defamatory claims about the applicants.

• Final Interdict
• Defamation
• Reasonable Apprehension Of Injury
• Publication Of Defamatory Statements
• Final-interdict
• Reasonable-apprehension-of-injury

Minister of Law and Order and Others v Nordien and Another (473/85)

Minister of Law and Order and Others v Nordien and Another (473/85) [1987] ZASCA 24; [1987] 2 All SA 164 (A) (26 March 1987)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

473/85

Judges

Rabie, Jansen, Joubert, Hefer, Boshoff

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the applicants failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of future injury or harassment by the police. The incident following the laying of charges was found, on uncontradicted evidence, to be unrelated to any prior threats and was merely for the purpose of obtaining statements regarding the complaint. The applicants did not take the threats seriously enough to warrant immediate court intervention, and no untoward events occurred in the ten days following the laying of charges. On these facts, a reasonable person would not apprehend that the threats w…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Reasonable Apprehension Of Injury
• Mandamus
• Unlawful Arrest
• Police Misconduct