South Africa Case Law

Chibane and Another v Premier of Province of Kwazulu-Natal (DA15/2024)

Chibane and Another v Premier of Province of Kwazulu-Natal (DA15/2024) [2025] ZALAC 44 (15 July 2025)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

DA15/2024

Judges

Van Niekerk, Tokota, Basson

The Labour Appeal Court held that the Labour Court does not have general jurisdiction to intervene in incomplete disciplinary proceedings or to grant declaratory relief regarding delay and waiver unless specifically conferred by statute. The pleadings did not invoke any statutory provision or contractual basis for the claims advanced, and no permissible ground for review was articulated. The Labour Court was correct to refuse to entertain the review application in medias res, as there is a general rule against reviewing interlocutory rulings mid-process absent exceptional circumstances. The a…

Source excerpt

• Labour Court Jurisdiction
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Unreasonable Delay
• Waiver Of Rights
• Review Of Interlocutory Ruling

Technology Corporate Management (Pty) Ltd v Moue and Others (J 186/23)

Technology Corporate Management (Pty) Ltd v Moue and Others (J 186/23) [2023] ZALCJHB 71 (12 March 2023)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J 186/23

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

The Labour Court dismissed an urgent bid to stay CCMA arbitration pending review of interlocutory rulings, finding the urgency self-created and the relief unjustified.

• Stay Of Arbitration
• Urgent Interdict
• Disclosure Of Documents
• Review Of Interlocutory Ruling
• Self Created Urgency
• Labour-law

Road Accident Fund v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (J1779/2010)

Road Accident Fund v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (J1779/2010) [2010] ZALCJHB 362 (7 September 2010)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1779/2010

Judge

Francis

The court found that the urgency claimed by the applicant was self-created and not justified. The delays in bringing the application were inadequately explained and resulted from the applicant's own choices regarding legal representation. The court held that intervention in uncompleted arbitration proceedings should be rare and only justified by grave injustice, which was not established in this case. The dispute was not complex and did not warrant deviation from the default position of informal and expeditious resolution without legal representation. The applicant failed to establish a prima…

Source excerpt

• Urgent Interdict
• Legal Representation In Ccma
• Review Of Interlocutory Ruling
• Condonation
• Unfair Dismissal

Road Accident Fund v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (J1779/2010)

Road Accident Fund v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (J1779/2010) [2010] ZALC 130; (2011) 32 ILJ 707 (LC) (7 September 2010)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

J1779/2010

Judge

Francis

The court found that the urgency claimed by the applicant was self-created and not adequately explained. The delay in launching the application was due to the unavailability of a particular senior counsel, which the court found unacceptable. The applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, as the issues were not complex and did not warrant postponement of the arbitration. The court emphasized that intervention in uncompleted arbitration proceedings should be rare and only in cases of grave injustice, which was not present here. The Labour Relations Act's purpose is…

Source excerpt

• Urgent Interdict
• Legal Representation In Arbitration
• Ccma Rules
• Unfair Dismissal
• Condonation
• Review Of Interlocutory Ruling