South Africa Case Law

Koto v MEC for Rural Development and Agrarian Reform and Another (P21/24)

Koto v MEC for Rural Development and Agrarian Reform and Another (P21/24) [2024] ZALCPE 25 (5 July 2024)

Court

Labour Court Port Elizabeth

Case number

P21/24

Judge

Thys

The Labour Court's jurisdiction is strictly defined by the Labour Relations Act and, where applicable, the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. The applicant's claim was based on the alleged unlawfulness of his dismissal, without invoking any specific provision of the LRA or section 77(3) of the BCEA. The court held that it does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims of unlawful dismissal unless the applicant relies on a statutory provision conferring such jurisdiction. The applicant's failure to plead under the relevant sections of the LRA or BCEA meant the court could not entertain the m…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Unlawful Dismissal
• Section 157 Lra
• Section 77 Bcea
• Role Of Pleadings

Letimile v Cape Town International Convention Centre Company SOC Ltd (C575/2021)

Letimile v Cape Town International Convention Centre Company SOC Ltd (C575/2021) [2023] ZALCCT 5; (2023) 44 ILJ 1300 (LC); [2023] 7 BLLR 670 (LC) (8 March 2023)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C575/2021

Judge

Rabkin-Naicker

The Labour Court dismissed an exception based on subsidiarity, holding that section 157(2) of the LRA can support claims for workplace-related constitutional rights violations.

• Subsidiarity Principle
• Labour Court Jurisdiction
• Constitutional Damages
• Section 157 Lra
• Employment Equity Act
• Fundamental Rights In Employment

MEC for the Department of Health Eastern Cape v NEHAWU and Others (P48/22)

MEC for the Department of Health Eastern Cape v NEHAWU and Others (P48/22) [2022] ZALCPE 9 (24 June 2022)

Court

Labour Court Port Elizabeth

Case number

P48/22

Judge

Lallie

The Labour Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the respondents' counter-application, which sought declaratory relief based on alleged violations of section 27 of the Constitution and various health statutes. The respondents failed to demonstrate that the alleged constitutional violation arose from employment or labour relations, or any of the circumstances contemplated in section 157(2) of the Labour Relations Act. The pleadings did not identify any individual denied emergency medical treatment, nor did they establish a link between the alleged violation and the applicant's…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Section 157 Lra
• Section 27 Constitution
• Declaratory Orders
• Unprotected Strike

Baloyi v Public Protector and Others (CCT03/20)

Baloyi v Public Protector and Others (CCT03/20) [2020] ZACC 27; 2021 (2) BCLR 101 (CC); [2021] 4 BLLR 325 (CC); (2021) 42 ILJ 961 (CC); 2022 (3) SA 321 (CC) (4 December 2020)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 03/20

Judges

Mogoeng CJ, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Mathopo AJ, Mhlantla J, Theron J, Tshiqi J, Victor AJ

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court's jurisdiction is not ousted merely because a dispute arises in the employment context. Section 157(1) of the Labour Relations Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Labour Court only for matters that are to be determined by the Labour Court in terms of the LRA or other law. The applicant's claims, based on breach of contract, public law, and constitutional obligations, do not rely on rights or remedies created by the LRA. The pleadings establish causes of action independent of the LRA, and the applicant expressly disavowed reliance on the…

Source excerpt

• Concurrent Jurisdiction
• Unlawful Termination
• Section 157 Lra
• Constitutional Obligations
• Breach Of Contract
• Review Application

Nkadibeng and Another v Director General: Department of Trade and Industry (92073/15)

Nkadibeng and Another v Director General: Department of Trade and Industry (92073/15) [2020] ZAGPPHC 146 (5 May 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

92073/15

Judge

Sardiwalla

The court found that the applicants' claim arose from their employment contracts and disciplinary codes, and not from rights entrenched in Chapter 2 of the Constitution. The applicants sought to review the disciplinary chairperson's decision to dismiss them, arguing unlawfulness due to the violation of a prior court order. However, the court held that such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 158(1)(h) of the Labour Relations Act. The High Court's concurrent jurisdiction under section 157(2) of the LRA is only engaged where constitutional rights are…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Unlawful Dismissal
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Concurrent Jurisdiction
• Section 157 Lra

Singhala v Ernst and Young Incorporated and Another (J2046/2017)

Singhala v Ernst and Young Incorporated and Another (J2046/2017) [2017] ZALCJHB 518; [2019] 5 BLLR 494 (LC); (2019) 40 ILJ 1083 (LC) (12 September 2017)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2046/2017

Judge

GN Moshoana

The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain claims for unlawful or invalid dismissal outside the remedies provided by the Labour Relations Act. The applicant's case, despite attempts to frame it as a constitutional violation, is fundamentally a labour dispute governed by the LRA. The LRA provides comprehensive remedies for unfair and automatically unfair dismissals, and attempts to disavow these remedies do not create jurisdiction for the Labour Court to grant relief outside the statutory framework. The Skills Development Act does not apply in the absence of a tripartite learnership agre…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Automatically Unfair Dismissal
• Section 157 Lra
• Skills Development Act
• Discrimination
• Costs Orders

Perumal v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (D550/2000)

Perumal v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (D550/2000) [2001] ZALC 77; [2001] 8 BLLR 953 (LC);(2001) 22 ILJ 1870 (LC) (30 May 2001)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

D550/2000

Judge

D Pillay

The Labour Court found that the transfer of the applicant constituted disciplinary action as contemplated by Item 2(1)(c) of Schedule 7 to the LRA. Accordingly, the dispute should have been referred to arbitration, and section 157(5) of the LRA precluded the Court from adjudicating the matter. Even if the Court had jurisdiction, the applicant was afforded an opportunity to make representations regarding the charges, and the decision-maker was entitled to consider all relevant material, whether or not disclosed to the applicant beforehand. The requirements for a fair hearing prior to transfer…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Unfair Labour Practice
• Disciplinary Transfer
• Fair Administrative Action
• Section 157 Lra
• Section 33 Constitution