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
NUM obo Mbengwa v Dwarsrivier Chrome Mine (Pty) Ltd (JS171/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 342 (8 August 2025)
The Labour Court granted NUM leave to amend its statement of claim, but ordered costs against NUM because the pre-trial minute remained unresolved.
Mokoena v West Rand District Municipality and Others (J599/22) [2025] ZALCJHB 320 (8 July 2025)
The court held that the 60-day period in section 57(2)(a)(i) of the Municipal Systems Act refers to working days, not calendar days, and excludes weekends and public holidays. The applicant was required to work Monday to Friday, and there was no agreement to work on public holidays. Counting 60 working days from 1 December 2016, the last day for signing the performance agreement was 28 February 2017. The applicant signed the agreement on 27 February 2017, within the prescribed period. Therefore, the jurisdictional requirements for the contract to lapse were not met, and the respondent's relia…
Source excerpt
Miyambu and Others v Steve Tshwete Local Municipality and Another (2025/002049) [2025] ZALCJHB 40 (5 February 2025)
The Labour Court held that a licensing-function transfer triggered section 197, preserving the applicants’ employment and entitling them to unpaid salaries.
Roka Media (Pty) Ltd v Kunene Makopo Risk Solutions (Pty) Ltd (55741/21) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1247 (5 December 2024)
High Court contract dispute over app development services: Claim A succeeded for unpaid SLA amounts, but the alleged oral addendum failed.
Masinga v Almar Investments (Pty) Ltd (J564/23) [2024] ZALCJHB 381; [2024] 12 BLLR 1303 (LC); (2025) 46 ILJ 379 (LC) (8 October 2024)
The court found that no binding settlement agreement was concluded, as the applicant's acceptance of the proposed amount was expressly conditional on receipt of a tax directive and calculation of net payment. The respondent failed to obtain the tax directive and insisted on a signed agreement beforehand, evidencing lack of consensus. The respondent's defence of supervening impossibility due to Covid-19 was rejected for lack of evidence regarding its treatment of other employees and continued operations. The applicant's tender of services was accepted as fact, and the respondent's refusal to a…
Source excerpt
Khumalo and Others v Gauteng Department of Economic Development (JS89/18) [2024] ZALCJHB 317 (20 June 2024)
The Labour Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal in a remuneration dispute, finding no reasonable prospects of success and no jurisdictional basis.
NEHAWU obo Sader v Education Training And Development Practices Sector Education And Training Authority (J95/2020) [2024] ZALCJHB 48 (10 January 2024)
The Labour Court held that Sader was only finally dismissed on 1 July 2020 and ordered payment of outstanding remuneration and costs.
Hackula v Premier of the Eastern Cape Province and Another (PS39/17) [2023] ZALCPE 15 (4 August 2023)
The Labour Court held that the applicant’s dismissal was not lawfully effected, but refused specific performance on public policy grounds.
Mabena v Road Traffic Management Corporation (J1422/20) [2022] ZALCJHB 356 (15 November 2022)
The Labour Court held that an employee could claim remuneration under section 77(3) for the period between a reinstatement award and actual reinstatement.
Association Mineworkers and Construction Union obo the AMCU Members v T.W. Civils and Earthmoving (PTY) Ltd and Another (J 1066/2020) [2022] ZALCJHB 223 (8 August 2022)
The court found that the respondents complied with the operative parts of the order by reinstating the employees and facilitating the required consultations. Any claim for remuneration arising from the reinstatement is contractual and cannot be enforced through contempt proceedings. The applicants abandoned their main contentions regarding reinstatement and retrenchment procedure, leaving only the issue of back pay, which does not constitute contempt. The application was brought with undue delay and without full disclosure of relevant facts, justifying an adverse costs order.
Source excerpt
Explore more
