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
South African Police Services v Moyo and Another (C414/2021) [2025] ZALCCT 59 (2 July 2025)
The Labour Court dismissed SAPS’s unopposed review and condonation application, finding no unreasonable delay and no basis to interfere with the disciplinary sanction.
NEHAWU obo Titus v Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development(Western Cape) (C228/2022) [2022] ZALCCT 27 (13 June 2022)
The Labour Court stayed a disciplinary inquiry pending arbitration over legal representation, but refused to halt it pending a section 158(1)(h) review.
Maile and Others v Free State Provincial Legislature and Others (C183/2019) [2021] ZALCCT 17 (8 April 2021)
The Labour Court dismissed a review attacking a provincial legislature appointment, holding that section 158(1)(h) was unavailable where LRA remedies existed.
POPCRU obo Matjele v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (JR 1025/2019) [2021] ZALCJHB 14 (8 February 2021)
The Labour Court dismissed POPCRU’s review and condonation bid, finding a six-month delay unreasonable and the employee’s deemed dismissal lawful.
Police and Prisons Civil Rights Union (POPCRU) obo Li v Department of Police, Roads and Transport: Free State Province and Others (J266/20) [2020] ZALCJHB 253 (10 March 2020)
The court found that the applicant had established urgency and a prima facie right to relief. The respondents failed to demonstrate that the charges in the second disciplinary enquiry were sufficiently distinct from those previously adjudicated, and the absence of a valid review or order setting aside the first acquittal rendered the second enquiry unlawful. The court held that the applicant faced potential irreparable harm, as the legality of the process was in dispute and the outcome could result in dismissal. The balance of convenience favoured granting the interim interdict, as the impugn…
Source excerpt
National Commissioner of Police Service and Another v Bobie NO and Another (C585/16) [2018] ZALCCT 4; (2018) 39 ILJ 1140 (LC) (2 February 2018)
The application for review fails because the applicants did not properly identify the legal grounds for review under section 158(1)(h) of the LRA. Instead, they merely disagreed with the factual findings of the Appeals Authority and labelled them as irrational or unreasonable. The Labour Court emphasized that a review cannot succeed simply because the decision is considered incorrect; the grounds for review must be legally permissible and properly conceptualised. The applicants' submissions were akin to those made in an appeal, not a review, and failed to engage with the complexities of wheth…
Source excerpt
Public Service Association of South Africa obo Members v MEC for Agricultural and Rural Development (North West Province) (JR634/13) [2017] ZALCJHB 480 (12 October 2017)
The court held that the dispute raised by the applicants regarding the application of the PMDS policy and payment of performance bonuses is, at its core, an unfair labour practice relating to benefits as defined under Section 186(2)(b) of the LRA. The applicants attempted to re-label the dispute as a legality review under Section 158(1)(h), but the court found this inappropriate. The Labour Court has jurisdiction to review such decisions, but should only exercise this power in exceptional circumstances where no alternative remedy exists. In this case, the applicants failed to demonstrate any…
Source excerpt
Msagala v Transnet Soc Ltd and Others (J492/2017) [2017] ZALCJHB 370; (2018) 39 ILJ 259 (LC); [2018] 2 BLLR 193 (LC) (9 October 2017)
The court held that an arbitrator appointed under section 188A of the Labour Relations Act acts independently under the auspices of the bargaining council and does not represent the employer. The arbitrator exercises statutory powers and is not bound by the employer's disciplinary code or procedures. Consequently, the ruling refusing discovery of forensic reports was not made by the employer or its representative, and thus is not reviewable under section 158(1)(h) on the basis of legality. The application was dismissed as the applicant conceded that, in these circumstances, the review could n…
Source excerpt
POPCRU obo Mahlangu v Premier, Gauteng and Another (JR 510/10) [2011] ZALCJHB 172; (2012) 33 ILJ 1247 (LC) (2 December 2011)
The Labour Court dismissed POPCRU’s review over market-related rent for provincial housing, holding the State acted as lessor, not as employer.
Explore more
