South Africa Case Law

Letakgomo v Johnson Matthey (Pty) Ltd (J683/23)

Letakgomo v Johnson Matthey (Pty) Ltd (J683/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 240 (31 May 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J683/23

Judge

G N Moshoana

The court found that the applicant did not make a disclosure within the meaning of the Protected Disclosures Act, as his report concerned criminal conduct not attributable to the employer or its employees. Without a protected disclosure, the disciplinary hearing could not be considered an occupational detriment, and the jurisdictional requirements for invoking section 188A(11) of the Labour Relations Act were not met. The court further held that the holding of a disciplinary hearing is not, in itself, an occupational detriment, and that Rule 34(9) of the CCMA Rules, which compels the employer…

Source excerpt

• Protected Disclosure Act
• Occupational Detriment
• Disciplinary Hearing
• Section 188a Inquiry
• Costs Award

National Commissioner Department of Correctional Services v Nxele and Another (DA 04/2023)

National Commissioner Department of Correctional Services v Nxele and Another (DA 04/2023) [2025] ZALAC 9; [2025] 5 BLLR 472 (LAC) (17 February 2025)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

DA04/2023

Judges

Savage ADJP, Van Niekerk JA, Govindjee AJA

The Labour Appeal Court upheld a ruling converting disciplinary proceedings into a section 188A(11) inquiry after finding a good-faith protected-disclosure basis.

• Protected Disclosure
• Occupational Detriment
• Section 188a Inquiry
• Lis Alibi Pendens
• Unfair Suspension
• Protected-disclosures

NUMSA obo Mbali v Road Accident Fund and Another (J848/24)

NUMSA obo Mbali v Road Accident Fund and Another (J848/24) [2024] ZALCJHB 541 (30 August 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J848/24

Judge

Baloyi

The Labour Court interdicted an internal disciplinary hearing, finding a prima facie protected disclosure and ordering a section 188A(11) inquiry instead.

• Protected Disclosure
• Occupational Detriment
• Section 188a Inquiry
• Disciplinary Hearing Interdict
• Good Faith Requirement
• Protected-disclosure

Musawenkosi Mkhwanazi v Tokiso Dispute Settlement (Pty) Ltd (JR1575/21)

Musawenkosi Mkhwanazi v Tokiso Dispute Settlement (Pty) Ltd (JR1575/21) [2024] ZALCJHB 271 (5 July 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1575/21

Judge

Boda

Labour Court review dismissed: the arbitrator’s findings on procurement irregularities, conflict of interest, and lifestyle-audit non-compliance were upheld.

• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Section 188a Inquiry
• Conflict Of Interest
• Irregular Expenditure
• Lifestyle Audit Policy
• Labour-law

Maeta v Bidvest Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR352/21)

Maeta v Bidvest Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR352/21) [2024] ZALCJHB 237; [2024] 11 BLLR 1155 (LC); (2024) 45 ILJ 2587 (LC) (4 June 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR352/21

Judge

M Makhura

The Labour Court reviewed a refusal to postpone a section 188A inquiry, finding late disclosure and inadequate preparation time made the process unfair.

• Postponement Of Arbitration
• Unfair Dismissal
• Section 188a Inquiry
• Procedural Fairness
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Postponement-of-arbitration

Louw v Transnet SOC Ltd and Others (PR38/22)

Louw v Transnet SOC Ltd and Others (PR38/22) [2024] ZALCPE 17 (20 May 2024)

Court

Labour Court Port Elizabeth

Case number

PR38/22

Judge

M Makhura

The court found that the commissioner committed material misdirection and gross irregularities by relying solely on the disciplinary code and unsubstantiated arguments regarding the breakdown of the trust relationship, without conducting an independent and objective inquiry into the seriousness of the misconduct or considering mitigating factors such as length of service and absence of dishonesty. The charge against the applicant did not involve deceit or workplace bullying, and no evidence was presented regarding intolerability or impracticability of continued employment. The commissioner el…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Abuse Of Power
• Progressive Discipline
• Remedies For Unfair Dismissal
• Section 188a Inquiry

Nxele v National Commissioner: Department of Correctional Services and Another (D303/2022)

Nxele v National Commissioner: Department of Correctional Services and Another (D303/2022) [2022] ZALCD 32 (2 August 2022)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D303/2022

Judge

Allen-Yaman

The Labour Court held that Nxele’s suspension had lapsed, and ordered his disciplinary enquiry converted into a section 188A(11) inquiry by arbitrator.

• Precautionary Suspension
• Protected Disclosure
• Section 188a Inquiry
• Lis Alibi Pendens
• Unlawful Suspension
• Costs Award

Department of Correctional Services v Nxele and Others (J158/22)

Department of Correctional Services v Nxele and Others (J158/22) [2022] ZALCJHB 37; [2022] 6 BLLR 552 (LC); (2022) 43 ILJ 1668 (LC) (9 March 2022)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J158/22

Judge

Whitcher

The Labour Court refused an interdict to keep a correctional services employee from returning to work pending review of an arbitration award.

• Precautionary Suspension
• Section 188a Inquiry
• Unfair Labour Practice
• Final Interdict
• Sms Handbook Suspension
• Review Of Arbitration Award

Tsibani v Estate Agency Affairs Board and Others (J642/2021)

Tsibani v Estate Agency Affairs Board and Others (J642/2021) [2021] ZALCJHB 150 (24 June 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J642/2021

Judge

Connie Prinsloo

The Labour Court struck an urgent application off the roll, holding that the applicant failed to show urgency and misread section 188A(11) of the LRA.

• Protected Disclosure
• Urgency In Labour Court
• Section 188a Inquiry
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Costs Award
• Labour-court-urgency

FAIS Ombud v Rametsi and Others (J2591/17)

FAIS Ombud v Rametsi and Others (J2591/17) [2017] ZALCJHB 418 (17 November 2017)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2591/17

Judge

Mahosi

The applicant failed to furnish security as required by section 145(8) of the LRA, which is a prerequisite for suspending the operation of an arbitration award pending review. The applicant's decision to stop paying the first respondent's salary and benefits was unlawful, as her employment contract remained valid and enforceable. The launching of the review application restored the status quo ante, requiring the applicant to maintain the first respondent's suspension with full benefits. The applicant did not make out a case for the stay, and it would not be in the interests of justice to gran…

Source excerpt

• Section 188a Inquiry
• Stay Of Enforcement
• Contempt Proceedings
• Security For Review
• Suspension With Benefits