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
Masha v Zizwe Opencast Mining (Pty) Ltd (JS188/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 337 (6 August 2025)
The Labour Court dismissed an application for condonation after finding the applicant’s delay in filing the statement of case was excessive and inadequately explained.
Paredes-Tarazona v Worley Parsons South Africa (Pty) Ltd (23347/2014) [2025] ZAGPJHC 753 (4 August 2025)
The High Court dismissed an employee’s claim after finding no contract with the defendant and no basis for estoppel, with costs awarded against him.
Mthembu and Others v Snackworks and Another (D505/2021) [2025] ZALCD 29 (29 July 2025)
The Labour Court dismissed an application to retrieve an archived file, finding the delay was inadequately explained and the applicants lacked prospects of success.
Digicall Transport Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Gosa and Others (JR1083/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 303 (10 July 2025)
The Court found that the applicant failed to provide any factual basis for its grounds of review in its founding papers and did not supplement its case with a supplementary affidavit. The applicant merely advanced conclusions without supporting evidence and improperly attempted to make out its case in heads of argument. The Commissioner’s findings were based on the evidence before her, which showed that the restructuring was not bona fide but rather a device to compel the third respondent to accept a reduced salary. The consultation process was a fait accompli, and no genuine alternatives wer…
Source excerpt
HeroTel (Pty) Ltd v Moses and Others (CA05/2024) [2025] ZALAC 42 (10 July 2025)
The court found that the rationale for retrenchment advanced by Fusion was misleading and did not reflect the true reason for the dismissals. The evidence showed that Fusion transferred key business units and revenue streams to the appellant, creating a self-induced financial crisis. The failure to disclose audited financial statements and other financial information undermined the consultation process and prevented the affected employees from challenging the rationale or proposing alternatives. The selection criteria were not agreed upon, and no objective evidence supported their fairness. T…
Source excerpt
National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others v Chabo and Joubert Air Conditioning (Pty) Ltd (JS432/20) [2025] ZALCJHB 255 (26 June 2025)
The Labour Court found a retrenchment substantively unfair for lack of meaningful consultation, rational basis, and fair selection criteria. Reinstatement and compensation were ordered.
Inama v Raydian (Pty) Ltd (JS718/2023) [2025] ZALCJHB 219 (13 June 2025)
The applicant's conduct and written communication on 18 August 2023 demonstrated a clear and unambiguous intention to terminate her employment prior to the expiry of the notice period. By revoking her notice period and ceasing to work, she effectively resigned before the date of dismissal as contemplated in the retrenchment letter. The court found that the applicant was not dismissed by the respondent but resigned of her own accord, and therefore her claim for unfair dismissal could not succeed. The special plea was upheld and the applicant's claim dismissed.
Source excerpt
Lorren v Raydian (Pty) Ltd (JS718/2023) [2025] ZALCJHB 228 (13 June 2025)
The Labour Court upheld a special plea after finding the applicant resigned during her notice period, so her unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
Faeroes Properties (Pty) Ltd v Southern African Clothing and Textile Workers Union and Others (JA37/2024) [2025] ZALAC 35 (5 June 2025)
Labour Appeal Court upheld findings of unfair retrenchment, dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal, and left compensation in place without costs.
De Weijer v Babcock Africa Services (Pty) Ltd (JS195/21) [2025] ZALCJHB 193 (19 May 2025)
The Court found that the Defendant had a genuine operational rationale for retrenchment, precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic and its severe impact on business operations. The Plaintiff's position was properly identified as redundant, and the functions previously performed by him were absorbed by other employees. No suitable alternative positions were available at the time, and bumping was not feasible as the Plaintiff lacked the necessary skills and experience for the positions identified. The consultation process was found to be procedurally fair, with the Defendant engaging in multiple me…
Source excerpt
Explore more
