South Africa Case Law

Afriforum and Another v Chairman of the Council of the University of the Free State and Others (A70/2016)

Afriforum and Another v Chairman of the Council of the University of the Free State and Others (A70/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 130 (21 July 2016)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A70/2016

Judges

Hendricks, Mokgohloa, Motimele

The court held that the University of the Free State, as an organ of state, is bound by the Bill of Rights and must comply with section 29(2) of the Constitution. The decision to adopt the 2016 language policy, making English the primary medium of instruction and diminishing Afrikaans, was taken without proper consideration of whether it remained reasonably practicable to continue parallel medium instruction. The Council and Senate failed to consider relevant factors such as equity, practicability, and redress, and did not adequately assess the impact on Afrikaans-speaking students or the res…

Source excerpt

• Language Rights In Education
• Section 29 2 Constitution
• Reasonable Practicability
• Non-retrogression
• Unfair Discrimination
• Higher Education Policy

Xstrata South Africa (Pty) Ltd (Lydenburg Alloy Works) v Num Obo Masha and Others (JA 4/15)

Xstrata South Africa (Pty) Ltd (Lydenburg Alloy Works) v Num Obo Masha and Others (JA 4/15) [2016] ZALAC 25; (2016) 37 ILJ 2313 (LAC); [2017] 4 BLLR 384 (LAC) (14 June 2016)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA 4/15

Judges

Murphy, Davis, Musi

The Labour Appeal Court held that reinstatement is the primary remedy for unfair dismissal and upheld retrospective reinstatement because the arbitrator’s refusal was based on irrelevant factors.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Reinstatement
• Compensation
• Arbitration Review
• Reasonable Practicability
• Unfair-dismissal

Mediterranean Textile Mill v SACTWU others (DA 12/10)

Mediterranean Textile Mill v SACTWU others (DA 12/10) [2011] ZALAC 23; [2012] 2 BLLR 142 (LAC); (2012) 33 ILJ 160 (LAC) (25 October 2011)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

DA 12/10

Judges

Ndlovu JA, Mlambo JP, Mocumie AJA

The Labour Appeal Court held that while reinstatement is the primary remedy for unfair dismissal, the extent of retrospectivity must be determined equitably, taking into account the financial position of the employer and the conduct of the employees. The evidence established that the appellant was in severe financial distress, and full retrospective reinstatement would unjustly burden the business. The employees' participation in an unprotected strike, though mitigated by provocation and short duration, warranted some censure. The Court found that limiting back pay to 12 months was fair and e…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Reinstatement
• Collective Agreements
• Back Pay
• Remedies For Unfair Dismissal
• Reasonable Practicability