South Africa Case Law

Hollard Insurance Company Ltd v Keta and Others (JR 948/2021)

Hollard Insurance Company Ltd v Keta and Others (JR 948/2021) [2023] ZALCJHB 157 (24 May 2023)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR 948/2021

Judge

Van Niekerk

The court found that the arbitrator failed to conduct the required two-stage inquiry into constructive dismissal, conflating the existence of dismissal with its fairness. The arbitrator did not properly interrogate whether the dismissal was unfair, which constitutes a reviewable irregularity. Objectively, the evidence did not support a finding that the applicant made continued employment intolerable for the employee. The applicant addressed the employee's grievances, issued apologies, and did not force her to sign any affidavit. The investigations and internal reviews were reasonable and did…

Source excerpt

• Constructive Dismissal
• Arbitration Review
• Jurisdictional Facts
• Unfair Dismissal
• Remedies On Review

Road Traffic Infringement Agency Board v Fines 4 U (Pty) Ltd and Another (30586/2014)

Road Traffic Infringement Agency Board v Fines 4 U (Pty) Ltd and Another (30586/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 140 (5 May 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

30586/2014

Judge

W R C Prinsloo

The High Court refused leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospect of success on bias, irrationality, or remedy in an AARTO review matter.

• Legality Review
• Ultra Vires Administrative Action
• Bias In Administrative Decision
• Irrationality
• Remedies On Review
• Costs Award

South African Police Service and Another v Van der Merwe NO and Others (JR 998/09)

South African Police Service and Another v Van der Merwe NO and Others (JR 998/09) [2012] ZALCJHB 132; [2013] 3 BLLR 320 (LC); (2013) 34 ILJ 1579 (LC) (8 November 2012)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR 998/09

Judge

Molahlehi

The Labour Court held that the arbitrator adopted an unduly technical approach by requiring a criminal conviction before SAPS could dismiss an employee for misconduct under Regulation 20(z). The regulation was interpreted to encompass conduct outside the employment relationship that is unbecoming, disgraceful, or improper for a police officer, and which undermines public confidence in the police. The court found that the conduct of Inspector Paton, involving dishonesty and breach of trust in defrauding a vulnerable friend, was intolerable and projected him as unfit to be a police officer. The…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Disciplinary Procedure
• Misconduct Outside Employment
• Saps Regulations
• Remedies On Review