Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Vilakazi v National Bargaining Council for Chemical Industry and Others (JR28/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 101 (11 March 2025)
The Labour Court reviewed and set aside an arbitration award upholding a dismissal, finding the commissioner failed to properly weigh the evidence and probabilities.
Road Accident Fund v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (PR138/18) [2020] ZALCPE 7 (14 February 2020)
The court found that the commissioner’s analysis of the evidence was thorough and did not support the applicant’s contention that the enquiry was misconstrued or that relevant evidence was ignored. The commissioner correctly evaluated the credibility of witnesses and the reliability of evidence, drawing adverse inferences where RAF failed to call material witnesses. The commissioner accepted the employee’s unchallenged evidence and found that RAF failed to prove any of the charges on a balance of probabilities. The commissioner’s decision to reinstate the employee was justified by the evidenc…
Source excerpt
Malatji v Metal Engineering Bargaining Council and Others (JR1230/19) [2019] ZALCJHB 365 (5 December 2019)
The Labour Court dismissed an unopposed review of an arbitration ruling, finding no reviewable irregularity and no basis to disturb the arbitrator’s decision.
Wardle v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (3561/2017) [2018] ZAECPEHC 16 (3 May 2018)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the respondents' decision to restrict her use of the internet modem in her cell was unreasonable. The privilege of using a laptop in her cell was already an exceptional concession, and the policy concerns regarding unregulated internet access were legitimate. The Department of Correctional Services has the competence to regulate such privileges, and the restrictions imposed were not shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable. The application was therefore dismissed.
Source excerpt
Barloworld Equipment SA v Love (JR1636/15) [2017] ZALCJHB 219 (17 May 2017)
The Labour Court dismissed a review of an arbitration award, finding the commissioner’s decision on an alleged sexual-harassment dismissal was reasonable.
San Contracting Services (Pty) Ltd v Kganyago and Others (JR1309/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 176 (20 February 2017)
The Labour Court refused leave to appeal after holding that the applicant had not shown reasonable prospects of success against the dismissal of its review.
Toto v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (P287/11) [2014] ZALCPE 4 (9 May 2014)
The Labour Court dismissed a review of a CCMA arbitration award, holding that the commissioner reasonably relied on direct and circumstantial evidence in upholding a dismissal for misconduct.
Olowookorun v United Hebrew Institutions of Port Elizabeth and Others (1940/2013) [2014] ZAECPEHC 16 (13 March 2014)
Review of a school’s revocation of a prefectship was dismissed as moot and, in any event, not unreasonable or tainted by bad faith.
South African Police Service v Safety And Security Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR 1881/2010) [2013] ZALCJHB 315 (18 October 2013)
The Labour Court found that the arbitrator failed to properly assess the probabilities and credibility of the witnesses, particularly by disregarding relevant evidence and not applying the correct technique for resolving mutually destructive versions. The arbitrator's decision to give Mofokeng the benefit of the doubt was not justified by the evidence, and he failed to discharge his duties as required by law. The Court held that the arbitrator's award fell outside the range of reasonable decisions and was therefore reviewable and subject to being set aside.
Source excerpt
Subaru Pretoria (Pty) Ltd v Motor Industry Bargaining Council (MIBCO) and Others (JR2068/2010) [2013] ZALCJHB 346; (2014) 35 ILJ 1080 (LC) (16 August 2013)
The Labour Court found that MIBCO's decision to cancel the exemption and the Appeals Board's dismissal of the appeal were not unreasonable or arbitrary. MIBCO had a rational policy, supported by detailed criteria, that retirement annuities do not provide benefits equal to those of industry retirement funds. The exemption was granted in error, and upon discovery, MIBCO acted within its discretion to withdraw it. The applicant was informed of the reasons for the withdrawal and had the opportunity to address the policy concerns on appeal. There was no evidence that the discretion was unlawfully…
Source excerpt
Explore more
