South Africa Case Law

Digicall Transport Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Gosa and Others (JR1083/23)

Digicall Transport Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Gosa and Others (JR1083/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 303 (10 July 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1083/23

Judge

Schensema

The Court found that the applicant failed to provide any factual basis for its grounds of review in its founding papers and did not supplement its case with a supplementary affidavit. The applicant merely advanced conclusions without supporting evidence and improperly attempted to make out its case in heads of argument. The Commissioner’s findings were based on the evidence before her, which showed that the restructuring was not bona fide but rather a device to compel the third respondent to accept a reduced salary. The consultation process was a fait accompli, and no genuine alternatives wer…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Retrenchment
• Compensation
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Section 189 Consultation
• Costs Award

Lorren v Raydian (Pty) Ltd (JS718/2023)

Lorren v Raydian (Pty) Ltd (JS718/2023) [2025] ZALCJHB 228 (13 June 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS718/2023

Judge

W Kruger

The Labour Court upheld a special plea after finding the applicant resigned during her notice period, so her unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Resignation
• Retrenchment
• Notice Period
• Section 189 Consultation
• Compensation

Jali v Wits Health Consortium (Pty) Ltd (D1584/17)

Jali v Wits Health Consortium (Pty) Ltd (D1584/17) [2025] ZALCD 8 (4 March 2025)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D1584/17

Judge

Whitcher

The Labour Court held that the applicant’s retrenchment was fair because her project post became redundant and she was fairly considered for alternative roles.

• Retrenchment
• Substantive Fairness
• Procedural Fairness
• Alternative Placement
• Section 189 Consultation
• Section-189-consultation

Buthelezi and Others v Mabotwana Security Services (JS821/22)

Buthelezi and Others v Mabotwana Security Services (JS821/22) [2025] ZALCJHB 75 (28 February 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS821/22

Judge

Molotsi

The respondent failed to comply with section 189 of the Labour Relations Act by not consulting the applicants or providing sufficient information regarding the retrenchment. The purported operational requirements were not genuine, as the real reason for dismissal was the client's demand. The respondent did not investigate alternatives or engage in a joint consensus-seeking process. The dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair. The applicants are entitled to compensation as the respondent's conduct was callous and provided contradictory reasons for dismissal. A just and equitab…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Retrenchment Procedure
• Section 189 Consultation
• Compensation For Unfair Dismissal

Lekalake v Eoh Mthombo (Pty) Ltd (JS895/19)

Lekalake v Eoh Mthombo (Pty) Ltd (JS895/19) [2025] ZALCJHB 62 (21 February 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS895/19

Judge

S Sethene

The court found that the respondent's stated reasons for the applicant's dismissal were not genuine operational requirements as required by section 189 of the Labour Relations Act. The evidence showed that the real reason for retrenchment was the closure of the Public Sector Division due to serious corruption allegations against senior executives, which led to the loss of government contracts. The respondent failed to prove any poor performance or inability of the applicant to perform his duties, nor did it demonstrate that alternative positions were unavailable due to legitimate operational…

Source excerpt

• Dismissal For Operational Requirements
• Substantive Fairness
• Retrospective Reinstatement
• Section 189 Consultation
• Costs Award
• Corruption Allegations

Mahlangu v Travel with Flair (Pty) Ltd (Reasons) (JS218/21)

Mahlangu v Travel with Flair (Pty) Ltd (Reasons) (JS218/21) [2025] ZALCJHB 270 (29 January 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS218/21

Judge

M T M Phehane

The Labour Court held that the retrenchment dismissal was procedurally and substantively fair, finding agreed selection criteria were applied and an alternative role was refused.

• Retrenchment
• Section 189 Consultation
• Selection Criteria
• Procedural Fairness
• Substantive Fairness
• Alternative Employment Offer

Malekunutu v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (JR1806/21)

Malekunutu v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (JR1806/21) [2025] ZALCJHB 36 (17 January 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1806/21

Judge

Nondwangu

The court found that the third respondent’s invocation of the retrenchment process was not based on genuine operational requirements but was a pretext to alter the applicant’s terms of employment. The evidence, including the employer’s email and witness testimony, indicated that the real motivation was the applicant’s higher salary compared to his peers, not financial distress. The consultation process was not meaningful, as alternatives were not properly explored and relevant information was not disclosed. The commissioner failed to consider critical evidence and thus his award was unreasona…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Retrenchment
• Section 189 Consultation
• Procedural Fairness
• Substantive Fairness
• Reinstatement

Le Grange v Dr Visser t/a Skukuza Medical Practice and Another (JA101/2022)

Le Grange v Dr Visser t/a Skukuza Medical Practice and Another (JA101/2022) [2024] ZALAC 61; [2025] 2 BLLR 152 (LAC); (2025) 46 ILJ 947 (LAC) (18 November 2024)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA101/2022

Judges

Van Niekerk JA, Musi, Sutherland AJJA

The Labour Appeal Court found that the Labour Court erred in raising and deciding the jurisdiction issue, as dismissal was admitted and not disputed by the parties. The appellant was dismissed by notice effective 31 March 2021, and her referral to the CCMA was not premature. The respondent failed to follow any process under section 189 of the Labour Relations Act, and there was no consultation or engagement with the appellant after the notice of termination. The belated offer of alternative employment was irrelevant, as the dismissal had already taken effect and could not be unilaterally reve…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Procedural Fairness
• Operational Requirements
• Compensation
• Section 189 Consultation

Maqengu v Servest (Pty) Ltd (JS252/20)

Maqengu v Servest (Pty) Ltd (JS252/20) [2024] ZALCJHB 530 (5 November 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS252/20

Judge

M T M Phehane

The Labour Court held that a retrenchment dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair, and dismissed the referral with costs.

• Retrenchment
• Operational Requirements Dismissal
• Section 189 Consultation
• Selection Criteria
• Severance Pay
• Costs Award

Ntsokolo v Eskom SOC Limited (JS413/2019)

Ntsokolo v Eskom SOC Limited (JS413/2019) [2024] ZALCJHB 341; (2024) 45 ILJ 2616 (LC) (23 April 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS413/2019

Judge

P Nkutha-Nkontwana

The Labour Court found Eskom’s retrenchment of Mr Ntsokolo substantively and procedurally unfair after an irrational placement process and inadequate consultation under section 189.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Retrenchment
• Section 189 Consultation
• Selection Criteria
• Compensation
• Procedural Fairness