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
Molefe v National Youth Development Agency (NYDA) and Others (2025/084031) [2025] ZALCJHB 248 (24 June 2025)
The Labour Court dismissed an urgent bid to interdict the NYDA from filling a post after an offer of employment was withdrawn, finding no prima facie right or balance of convenience.
Minister of Justice and Correctional Services v Mabanga and Another (JR428/19) [2025] ZALCJHB 174 (29 April 2025)
The Labour Court reviewed and set aside a disciplinary ruling after finding it irrational and unreasonable, then remitted the dispute for rehearing before a different chairperson.
Department of Health Gauteng Province and Another v Tenteni and Others (J01/2024) [2024] ZALCJHB 85 (27 February 2024)
The Labour Court found that the applicants failed to act with the required urgency, having been aware since March 2022 of the need to review the disciplinary sanction but only filing the application in January 2024. The explanation for the delay was inadequate and unconvincing, amounting to self-created urgency. The court emphasized that urgency is not automatic due to constitutional duties or exclusive jurisdiction, and that applicants must act diligently and promptly. The absence of a condonation application for late filing further undermined the case for urgency. Additionally, the applican…
Source excerpt
Minister of Women v Mahapa and Another (JR72/2020) [2024] ZALCJHB 12 (16 January 2024)
The Labour Court held that a review application brought by the State as employer under section 158(1)(h) of the LRA is a legality review and not subject to the deeming provisions of the Labour Court Practice Manual. The Practice Manual does not apply to such legality reviews, and the application cannot be deemed withdrawn or archived due to delay in filing the record. The correct procedure for filing the record is governed by Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court. The delay in filing the record was attributable to the presiding officer's failure to dispatch the record, and partial compliance…
Source excerpt
Makhonjwa v Director General of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (JR 998/19) [2023] ZALCJHB 90; (2023) 44 ILJ 1530 (LC) (21 April 2023)
The Labour Court dismissed an application to review the reinstatement of an employee, holding that the applicant failed to identify a review ground and was functus officio.
Ndlovu v Minister in Presidency Responsible for Women, Children and Persons with Disabilities and Another (JR 1525/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 229 (11 November 2020)
The Labour Court dismissed an urgent review of a refused temporary incapacity leave claim, finding no reviewable decision had yet been made and the application was premature.
Gauteng Provincial Government and Others v Thelma (JS256/15) [2019] ZALCJHB 258 (28 August 2019)
The applicants' attempt to introduce a counterclaim by invoking Rule 28 of the Uniform Rules was procedurally improper, as the Labour Court Rules do not provide for counterclaims and Rule 28 is not available for this purpose. The correct procedure would have been to seek the respondent's agreement or leave of court to deliver a counterclaim as part of the statement of response, in accordance with Uniform Rule 24, which the applicants failed to do. Furthermore, the substance of the counterclaim amounted to a review of the applicants' own decision to extend the respondent's appointment, which s…
Source excerpt
Minister of Police and Another v Kgopa and Another (JA42/2017) [2018] ZALAC 45; [2019] 1 BLLR 16 (LAC) (7 June 2018)
The Labour Appeal Court held that section 158(1)(h) of the LRA clearly empowers the Labour Court to review decisions of chairpersons at disciplinary hearings at the instance of the employer, where the State is the employer. The Labour Court's finding that the State lacks standing to review its own functionaries was incorrect in law and contradicted established precedent. Furthermore, the chairperson's decision to discharge the employee was unreasonable and illegal, as it failed to require the employee to testify in response to prima facie evidence of misconduct and improperly accepted the emp…
Source excerpt
Magoda v Director-General of Rural Development and Land Reform and Another (J1876/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 305; [2017] 12 BLLR 1267 (LC); (2017) 38 ILJ 2795 (LC) (28 August 2017)
The applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to review the procedural rulings under section 158(1)(h) of the LRA, as the rulings did not constitute the exercise of public power and alternative remedies were available under the LRA, notably arbitration. The Labour Court's intervention in incomplete disciplinary proceedings is reserved for exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case. The applicant did not demonstrate that grave injustice would result from the continuation of the disciplinary enquiry or that her rights could not be vindicated through arbitration. Acco…
Source excerpt
South Africa Police Union and Another v South African Police Service and Others (J2870/16) [2016] ZALCJHB 507 (15 December 2016)
The Labour Court found that the applicants' challenge was based on alleged unlawfulness, not unfairness, and concerned the breach of a collective agreement rather than its interpretation or application. The Court held that it had jurisdiction under section 158(1)(h) of the LRA to review the lawfulness of the disciplinary proceedings. The applicants established a prima facie right to interim relief, as proceeding with the disciplinary hearing before the legality review could result in irreparable harm. The balance of convenience favoured the applicants, and no adequate alternative remedy was a…
Source excerpt
Explore more
