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
Minister of Police v Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (PA 13/2023) [2025] ZALAC 14 (4 March 2025)
The Labour Appeal Court upheld an award reinstating a police clerk dismissed after firearms went missing from a station safe, finding the sanction reasonable.
Nu Africa Duty Free Shops (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (25788/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1855 (27 October 2023)
The court found that the Applicant, as exporter and clearing agent, was statutorily liable for the goods until export was proven. The Customs and Excise Act contains deeming provisions that place liability on the exporter if goods are not exported and proof is not provided. The Respondent acted within its statutory powers by imposing the forfeiture penalty when the Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of export. The court held that the administrative action was lawful, rational, and reasonable under PAJA, and that the penalty was not disproportionate given the statutory framework.…
Source excerpt
Malgas v National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight and Logistics Industry and Others (C164/2019) [2020] ZALCCT 18 (15 July 2020)
The court found that the applicant's explanation for the delay in filing the review application was unsatisfactory, but the merits of the review were strong enough that it would not be in the interests of justice to deny condonation. The arbitrator erred in relying on a contractual provision that was not properly adduced in evidence and failed to consider mitigating factors, including the applicant's clean disciplinary record and the recommended sanctions in the disciplinary code. The arbitrator's conclusion that dismissal was appropriate for a first unauthorised stop was not justified on the…
Source excerpt
Putco (Pty) Ltd v SA Road Passenger Bargaining Council and Others (JR1969-18) [2019] ZALCJHB 137; (2019) 40 ILJ 2389 (LC) (11 April 2019)
The Labour Court has jurisdiction to review decisions of exemption and exemption appeal authorities under s 158(1)(g) of the LRA, applying the Sidumo reasonableness test. Both the exemption and appeal authorities failed to provide substantive reasons for their decisions, did not interrogate the evidence properly, and did not address the core issue of affordability. The absence of reasoned decisions constitutes a material irregularity and renders the outcomes unreasonable. Given the comprehensive evidence before the court, the applicant's justified lack of faith in the exemption authorities, a…
Source excerpt
Black Eagle Project Roodekrans v MEC: Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment, Gauteng Provincial Department and Others (6085/07) [2019] ZAGPJHC 23; [2019] 2 All SA 322 (GJ) (28 February 2019)
The court held that the Head of Department was not functus officio when considering the exemption application, as the application was based on new facts and a changed departmental policy regarding high potential agricultural soil. The exemption application was thus properly before the HOD, and the MEC's appeal decision upholding it was rational and reasonable, having considered relevant environmental impacts and public participation. The challenge to the appeal decision was dismissed. However, the amendment decision of the MEC, which authorised a substantial increase in residential units, was…
Source excerpt
Ixolo Trading 12 (Pty) Ltd t/a Galferro Galvanisers v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (JR1065/2016) [2017] ZALCJHB 132 (13 April 2017)
The Labour Court dismissed an unopposed application for leave to appeal, finding the applicant had no reasonable prospects of success.
National Union of Mineworkers and Another v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR388/14) [2016] ZALCJHB 508; [2017] 4 BLLR 405 (LC) (15 December 2016)
Labour Court review of an interest arbitration award over Eskom wages and conditions. The court upheld the award and dismissed the unions’ review.
Melani and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others (02752/2014) [2016] ZAGPJHC 55; 2016 (5) SA 67 (GJ) (22 March 2016)
The Court found that the City of Johannesburg's failure to apply the Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme (UISP) to Slovo Park was unlawful and unreasonable. The UISP, as part of the National Housing Code, is binding on the City and prescribes that in situ upgrading should be preferred over relocation wherever feasible. Expert reports indicated that development at Slovo Park is possible despite dolomitic ground concerns. The City's unilateral decision to relocate residents to Unaville, without proper consultation or engagement, disregarded both the legislative framework and the legitim…
Source excerpt
Sanlam Life Insurance v Commission for Conciliation Meditation And Arbitration and Others (C417/2013) [2014] ZALCCT 9 (3 April 2014)
The court found that the commissioner erred in concluding that the third respondent was demoted. The evidence showed that the letter of 7 November 2012 constituted an offer of alternative employment, not a unilateral demotion. The third respondent did not accept the offer and made a counter proposal, which was rejected, leading to his retrenchment. The commissioner’s finding was not supported by the facts and was unreasonable. The jurisdictional prerequisite for an unfair labour practice based on demotion was not met, and the award was reviewed and set aside. The applicant’s claim was dismiss…
Source excerpt
Vaalriver Motors CC v Dispute Resolution Centre and Others (JR3063/2010) [2014] ZALCJHB 48 (25 February 2014)
The court found that the arbitrator's conclusion of procedural unfairness was not supported by evidence, as the issue of bias was neither raised nor substantiated during the disciplinary enquiry. The arbitrator failed to consider the context of the business and improperly introduced the issue of bias. On substantive fairness, the arbitrator did not rationally distinguish between the responsibilities of the cashier and the petrol attendant, leading to an unreasonable finding of inconsistent treatment. The evidence supported the employer's version that the third respondent confessed to theft an…
Source excerpt
Explore more
