South Africa Case Law

Viljoen v Peninsula Plumbing and Engineering Wroks (Pty) Ltd (C383/2021)

Viljoen v Peninsula Plumbing and Engineering Wroks (Pty) Ltd (C383/2021) [2025] ZALCCT 31 (15 May 2025)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C383/2021

Judge

Lagrange

The court found that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the existence of a two-tier retirement age policy at the respondent firm, distinguishing between site workers (retirement at 60) and administrative/supervisory staff (retirement at 65). The plaintiff, Viljoen, was employed as an artisan plumber and subject to the retirement age of 60, as confirmed by the Building Industry Bargaining Council agreement, the company's retirement policy, and signed annexures to employment contracts. The differential treatment was justified by the nature of the work and industry practice. The court held th…

Source excerpt

• Automatically Unfair Dismissal
• Retirement Policy
• Age Discrimination
• Labour Relations Act
• Employment Equity Act

Pedra v Wisium SA (Pty) Ltd (JS550/17)

Pedra v Wisium SA (Pty) Ltd (JS550/17) [2024] ZALCJHB 45 (26 January 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS550/17

Judge

Phehane

The Court found that the applicant's employment contract bound him to all company policies and the rules of the Old Mutual Provident Fund, which stipulated a normal retirement age of 60 for management employees. The evidence established that the retirement policy was accessible and known to the applicant, and that the respondent followed its policy and procedure in effecting the dismissal. The applicant failed to establish any differential treatment or unfair discrimination, and section 187(2)(b) of the LRA applied, rendering the dismissal not automatically unfair. The applicant's version was…

Source excerpt

• Automatic Unfair Dismissal
• Retirement Policy
• Normal Retirement Age
• Unfair Discrimination
• Employment Contract
• Provident Fund Rules

Seokwane v Bidvest Prestige Cleaning Services (Pty) Ltd (JS 1040/20)

Seokwane v Bidvest Prestige Cleaning Services (Pty) Ltd (JS 1040/20) [2023] ZALCJHB 313; [2024] 2 BLLR 194 (LC); (2024) 45 ILJ 333 (LC) (8 November 2023)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS 1040/20

Judge

Z Lallie

The court found that the respondent's dismissal of the applicant was not justified under section 187(2)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, as the real and proximate reason for the dismissal was operational requirements rather than the applicant having reached retirement age. The respondent disregarded its own retirement policy by employing the applicant after she had already passed the stipulated retirement age and failed to provide her with fair notice or clarity regarding her retirement date. The court held that the respondent's conduct amounted to unfair discrimination based on age, rendering…

Source excerpt

• Automatic Unfair Dismissal
• Age Discrimination
• Retirement Policy
• Employment Equity Act
• Labour Relations Act

Mocwaledi v Premier of the Northern Cape Province (C681/2019)

Mocwaledi v Premier of the Northern Cape Province (C681/2019) [2023] ZALCCT 1; [2023] 3 BLLR 254 (LC) (19 January 2023)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C681/2019

Judge

Rabkin-Naicker

The court found that the applicant had reached the statutory retirement age of 65 in January 2019, as set out in the Public Service Act. Although the respondent's administrative handling of the retirement process was lacking in professionalism and failed to provide proper notification, this did not render the dismissal automatically unfair under section 187(1)(f) of the LRA. The jurisprudence of the Labour Appeal Court confirms that retention of an employee beyond retirement age does not create a new contract or alter the retirement age, and the employer retains the right to terminate employm…

Source excerpt

• Automatically Unfair Dismissal
• Age Discrimination
• Retirement Policy
• Section 187 Lra

Pedra v Wisium SA (Pty) Ltd (JS550/17)

Pedra v Wisium SA (Pty) Ltd (JS550/17) [2022] ZALCJHB 53 (15 March 2022)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS550/17

Judge

T Deane

The Labour Court held that the claim was not defective, found the dispute to be an automatically unfair dismissal over age discrimination, and held the respondent to the pre-trial agreement to begin.

• Automatically Unfair Dismissal
• Age Discrimination
• Retirement Policy
• Onus Of Proof
• Pre Trial Agreement
• Automatically-unfair-dismissal

Solidarity obo Stones v Special Investigation Unit and Others (JR2751/18)

Solidarity obo Stones v Special Investigation Unit and Others (JR2751/18) [2021] ZALCJHB 450 (10 December 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR2751/18

Judge

Phehane

Review of an arbitration award under section 145 of the LRA. The Labour Court held the applicant had not shown a reasonable expectation of renewal or retention.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Reasonable Expectation Of Renewal
• Fixed Term Contracts
• Retirement Policy
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Labour-law

Khan v MMI Holdings Limited (C384/17)

Khan v MMI Holdings Limited (C384/17) [2021] ZALCCT 38; (2021) 42 ILJ 1737 (LC) (4 May 2021)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C384/17

Judge

F Coetzee

The court found that the applicant was bound by a retirement policy or practice setting the retirement age at 60. The respondent gave valid notice of termination, and the limited damages rule applied, restricting any claim to unpaid notice pay, which had already been paid. The applicant's contractual claim for damages beyond the notice period was dismissed. Regarding the discrimination claim, the court held that the Employment Equity Act and Labour Relations Act must be interpreted consistently. Since the LRA provides that termination at a normal or agreed retirement age is fair, the retireme…

Source excerpt

• Contractual Damages
• Retirement Policy
• Unfair Discrimination
• Employment Equity Act
• Limited Damages Rule

Khan v MMI Holdings Ltd (C384/17)

Khan v MMI Holdings Ltd (C384/17) [2018] ZALCCT 11; [2018] 7 BLLR 685 (LC); (2018) 39 ILJ 1772 (LC) (20 April 2018)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C384/17

Judge

Rabkin-Naicker

The court found that the applicant's statement of claim, when read as a whole, does not allege termination in terms of the contract's notice clause but rather termination under an alleged unwritten compulsory retirement policy. The respondent's reliance on annexures and case law regarding written contracts was misplaced, as the annexures in question were not the basis of the applicant's cause of action. Regarding the alternative claim under the Employment Equity Act, the court held that the existence of a retirement policy does not automatically shield an employer from an unfair discriminatio…

Source excerpt

• Employment Equity Act
• Unfair Discrimination
• Retirement Policy
• Automatic Unfair Dismissal
• Breach Of Contract

Kuper v South African Board of Jewish Education (JS 370/2012)

Kuper v South African Board of Jewish Education (JS 370/2012) [2013] ZALCJHB 54 (19 April 2013)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS 370/2012

Judge

Visagie

The Labour Court granted condonation for a 22-day late statement of case, admitted a supplementary affidavit, and refused to strike it out.

• Condonation
• Automatic Unfair Dismissal
• Age Discrimination
• Retirement Policy
• Late Filing
• Supplementary Affidavit

Cosme v Polisak (Pty) Ltd (JS 600/07)

Cosme v Polisak (Pty) Ltd (JS 600/07) [2010] ZALC 12; (2010) 31 ILJ 1861 (LC) (22 January 2010)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

JS 600/07

Judge

Molahlehi

The Labour Court held that Cosme’s dismissal was automatically unfair, finding no valid communicated retirement policy and a retaliatory, age-based motive.

• Automatically Unfair Dismissal
• Age Discrimination
• Victimisation
• Section 187 Lra
• Retirement Policy
• Compensation For Unfair Dismissal