South Africa Case Law

Nkosi v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa Soc Ltd (J1031/2023)

Nkosi v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa Soc Ltd (J1031/2023) [2025] ZALCJHB 281 (26 April 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1031/2023

Judge

M. T. M. Phehane

The Court found that PRASA complied with the Labour Appeal Court order by inviting Mr Nkosi to return to work on 3 September 2018. Mr Nkosi failed to tender his services at the required time and did not communicate his circumstances to PRASA. The reinstatement order did not automatically restore his employment; it required a timely tender of services, which Mr Nkosi did not make. His subsequent presentation for duty in December 2019 was well after the specified date, and he did not provide sufficient reasons for the delay in approaching the Court. The Court held that there was no basis to com…

Source excerpt

• Reinstatement Order
• Tender Of Services
• Unfair Dismissal
• Backpay Entitlement
• Condonation
• Contempt Of Court

Matlala v G4S Cash Solutions (Pty) Ltd (JS165/2016)

Matlala v G4S Cash Solutions (Pty) Ltd (JS165/2016) [2024] ZALCJHB 168 (15 April 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS165/2016

Judge

Norton

The court found that the employer failed to amend its pleadings to include the mitigation defence, and therefore could not rely on evidence of the applicant's alternative employment. However, the applicant's claim for arrear wages under section 77(3) of the BCEA was not sustainable because the employer never accepted his tender of services following the reinstatement order. According to binding precedent, a reinstatement order does not itself revive the employment contract; the contract is only revived when the employer accepts the employee's tender of services. Where the employer refuses to…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Reinstatement Order
• Breach Of Employment Contract
• Contempt Proceedings

Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union and Others v Piet Wes Civils CC and Others (J2845/2016)

Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union and Others v Piet Wes Civils CC and Others (J2845/2016) [2023] ZALCJHB 160 (25 May 2023)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2845/2016

Judge

Van Niekerk

The court found that the contempt order granted by Nkuta-Nkotwana J was both coercive and punitive, requiring compliance with the original reinstatement order and imposing a fine for non-compliance. However, the order did not specify ongoing consequences for continued non-compliance after payment of the fine. The respondents paid the fine after raising the necessary funds and engaging with the registrar regarding payment modalities. The court held that the payment of the fine purged the contempt and that the papers did not disclose any wilful or mala fide non-compliance with the terms of the…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Reinstatement Order
• Punitive Vs Coercive Contempt
• Section 189a Lra

Kubeka and Others v Ni-Da Transport (Pty) Ltd (D726-18;J5386-17)

Kubeka and Others v Ni-Da Transport (Pty) Ltd (D726-18;J5386-17) [2019] ZALCD 1; [2019] 5 BLLR 463 (LC); (2019) 40 ILJ 1312 (LC) (31 January 2019)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D726-18;J5386-17

Judge

Whitcher

The court held that the applicants were not entitled to arrear wages under a contractual claim because backpay only becomes due once the employment contract is fully restored, which requires both a tender of services and acceptance by the employer. The correct legal process for enforcing reinstatement and associated backpay is contempt proceedings, not a contractual claim under section 77(3) of the BCEA. The evidence established that a tender of services was made by a union official on behalf of the applicants, but the respondent refused reinstatement, choosing instead to pursue appeals. Howe…

Source excerpt

• Arrear Wages
• Reinstatement Order
• Contempt Of Court
• Basic Conditions Of Employment Act
• Judgment Debt Vs Contract Debt

SATAWU obo Members v Command Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR437/01, JR787/02)

SATAWU obo Members v Command Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR437/01, JR787/02) [2016] ZALCJHB 141 (8 April 2016)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR437/01, JR787/02

Judge

AC Basson

The Labour Court granted leave to appeal over whether the first respondent was the true employer and liable under a reinstatement order.

• Employer Identity
• Reinstatement Order
• Leave To Appeal
• Leave-to-appeal
• Employer-identity
• Reinstatement-order

SATAWU obo Members v Command Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR437/01, J787/02)

SATAWU obo Members v Command Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR437/01, J787/02) [2016] ZALCJHB 46 (10 February 2016)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR437/01 & J787/02

Judge

AC Basson

The court found that Command Security Services (Pty) Ltd was the employer liable to comply with the reinstatement order. There was no evidence that the suspensive conditions for the sale of the business to Ixia Trading 234 (Pty) Ltd were fulfilled, and Ixia never traded under the Command name. The first respondent continued to act as employer in meetings and negotiations with the union regarding reinstatement. The directors of the first respondent were aware of the Labour Court order prior to the contempt application. The respondents' version that they were not the employer and were unaware o…

Source excerpt

• Section 197 Transfer
• Reinstatement Order
• Contempt Of Court
• Identity Of Employer
• Fraudulent Misrepresentation