South Africa Case Law

Lephuthing and Another v Maluti a Phofung Water SOC Limited and Others (J507/24)

Lephuthing and Another v Maluti a Phofung Water SOC Limited and Others (J507/24) [2024] ZALCJHB 209 (21 May 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J507/24

Judge

Molotsi

The court held that the applicants failed to meet the requirements for urgency under Rule 8 of the Labour Court Rules. The applicants did not provide sufficient reasons why they could not obtain substantial redress in due course, relying instead on general statements about financial hardship, dignity, and alleged unlawfulness. The court emphasized that neither claims for specific performance nor allegations of unlawful termination automatically attract urgency. The applicants did not attach their contracts of employment or prove a breach, and failed to distinguish their circumstances from tho…

Source excerpt

• Urgent Application
• Specific Performance
• Unlawful Termination
• Rule 8 Labour Court
• Disciplinary Procedure

Union for Police security and Corrections Organisation obo Members and others v South African Custodial Management and Another (J2895/17)

Union for Police security and Corrections Organisation obo Members and others v South African Custodial Management and Another (J2895/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 430 (24 November 2017)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2895/17

Judge

E Tlhotlhalemaje

The Labour Court struck off an urgent application challenging employee suspensions, finding the urgency self-created and that CCMA remedies were available.

• Urgent Interdict
• Disciplinary Suspension
• Trade Union Rights
• Unfair Labour Practice
• Alternative Remedy
• Rule 8 Labour Court

Fani v Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality and Others (P322/15)

Fani v Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality and Others (P322/15) [2015] ZALCPE 46 (8 October 2015)

Court

Labour Court Port Elizabeth

Case number

P322/15

Judge

Lallie

The Labour Court struck an urgent application from the roll because the applicant delayed for 21 days and failed to explain why urgent relief was needed.

• Urgent Application
• Rule 8 Labour Court
• Costs Award
• Interim Interdict
• Suspension Of Employee
• Urgent-application

Mashabane v MEC for Provincial Department of Health Mpumalanga (J567/2015)

Mashabane v MEC for Provincial Department of Health Mpumalanga (J567/2015) [2015] ZALCJHB 109 (25 March 2015)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J567/2015

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

The Labour Court struck an urgent application challenging a suspension, finding the delay unexplained, urgency self-created, and alternative remedies available.

• Unlawful Suspension
• Urgency In Motion Proceedings
• Alternative Remedies
• Rule 8 Labour Court
• Costs Orders
• Unlawful-suspension

BIFAWU v South African Football Association and Another (J2986/2012)

BIFAWU v South African Football Association and Another (J2986/2012) [2013] ZALCJHB 200 (26 July 2013)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2986/2012

Judge

AC Basson

Urgent labour relief was refused because the union made no proper case for urgency and delayed without explanation, so the matter was struck from the roll.

• Urgent Interdict
• Automatic Unfair Dismissal
• Collective Agreement Interpretation
• Rule 8 Labour Court
• Restructuring And Retrenchment
• Urgent-interdict

National Union of Mineworkers v Black Mountain - A Division of Anglo Operations Ltd (C380/2007)

National Union of Mineworkers v Black Mountain - A Division of Anglo Operations Ltd (C380/2007) [2007] ZALCCT 11 (2 August 2007)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C380/2007

Judge

Basson

The Labour Court struck off an urgent application challenging a lock-out because the union failed to explain urgency or the delay in bringing the matter.

• Lockout Legality
• Urgency In Labour Court
• Protected Strike
• Rule 8 Labour Court
• Costs Award
• Labour-court-urgency