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

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa and Others v Ngoye and Others (JA78/21)

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa and Others v Ngoye and Others (JA78/21) [2024] ZALAC 18; (2024) 45 ILJ 1228 (LAC); [2024] 7 BLLR 706 (LAC); 2025 (2) SA 556 (LAC) (26 March 2024)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA78/21

Judges

Waglay JP, Musi JA, Gqamana AJA

The Labour Appeal Court held that contractual claims for unlawful termination can be heard, but specific performance is discretionary and was wrongly granted here.

• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Unlawful Dismissal
• Specific Performance
• Contractual Remedies
• Section 77 Bcea
• Forum Shopping

SAMWU obo Lehole and Others v Calvin Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (J 1062/2023)

SAMWU obo Lehole and Others v Calvin Security Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (J 1062/2023) [2023] ZALCJHB 241 (10 August 2023)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J 1062/2023

Judge

Van Niekerk

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie right to interim relief. The evidence showed that the employment contracts expired by effluxion of time, and there was no sufficient case for novation or unlawful termination in contractual terms. The union's reliance on section 77(3) of the BCEA was misplaced, as it does not confer substantive rights regarding termination. The dispute was essentially about a refusal to re-employ rather than termination, and the appropriate remedy would have been under the unfair dismissal provisions of the LRA, which the applicants did not…

Source excerpt

• Agency Shop Agreement
• Termination Of Fixed Term Contract
• Prima Facie Right
• Unlawful Termination
• Section 77 Bcea
• Interim Interdict

Myoyo v Executive Authority for the Department of Home Affairs and Another (J3156/17)

Myoyo v Executive Authority for the Department of Home Affairs and Another (J3156/17) [2021] ZALCJHB 421 (13 November 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J3156/17

Judge

Tlhotlhalemaje

The Labour Court made the parties’ draft settlement an order and refused a costs order, finding no bad faith or frivolous conduct by the respondents.

• Costs Award
• Settlement Agreement
• Section 77 Bcea
• Section 162 Lra
• Labour-court-costs
• Settlement-agreement

Bronner v Alpha Pharm (Pty) Ltd and Another (D1512/16)

Bronner v Alpha Pharm (Pty) Ltd and Another (D1512/16) [2020] ZALCD 2; [2020] 5 BLLR 518 (LC); (2020) 41 ILJ 1952 (LC) (28 January 2020)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D1512/16

Judge

Whitcher

The court found that the applicant's claims were not properly pleaded under section 77 of the BCEA and lacked evidentiary support. The claim for damages regarding the policy failed due to absence of proof of the surrender value and the binding effect of the signed resolution. The claim for additional payment for days worked was dismissed as no agreement was reached. The claim for a full annual bonus was rejected due to lack of evidence of company practice. Claims for accumulated and outstanding leave were dismissed in line with statutory interpretation, limiting payment to leave accrued in th…

Source excerpt

• Contract Of Employment
• Section 77 Bcea
• Accrued Leave
• Bonus Entitlement
• Damages
• Costs Follow Result

Moremi v Railway Safety Regulator SOE (JS562/19)

Moremi v Railway Safety Regulator SOE (JS562/19) [2020] ZALCJHB 7 (21 January 2020)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS562/19

Judge

Lallie

The Labour Court found that the applicant's claim before it was based on breach of contract, whereas the dispute previously determined by the CCMA concerned an unfair labour practice. These are distinct causes of action, and the relief sought in each forum is different. The respondent failed to prove that the applicant's claim before the Labour Court was founded on the same cause of action as the CCMA dispute. Accordingly, the principle of res judicata did not apply, and the Labour Court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate the contractual claim. The point in limine was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Res Judicata
• Contract Of Employment
• Unfair Labour Practice
• Jurisdiction
• Section 77 Bcea
• Section 191 Lra

Massmart Holdings Limited v Theron (JS1043/16)

Massmart Holdings Limited v Theron (JS1043/16) [2018] ZALCJHB 4; (2018) 39 ILJ 870 (LC) (11 January 2018)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS1043/16

Judge

P Nkutha-Nkontwana

The Labour Court held that a former employee breached a contractual undertaking by helping recruit a colleague to his new employer, and awarded damages.

• Breach Of Contract
• Damages For Breach
• Employment Contract
• Recruitment Costs
• Section 77 Bcea
• Breach-of-contract

Maloka v Workerslife Direct (Pty) Ltd (J1446/13)

Maloka v Workerslife Direct (Pty) Ltd (J1446/13) [2017] ZALCJHB 303 (25 August 2017)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1446/13

Judge

Barnes

The Labour Court found that the applicant proved he signed a GSB contract entitling him to post-termination commissions and ordered payment and costs.

• Specific Performance
• Employment Contract
• Commission Entitlement
• Contract Authenticity
• Section 77 Bcea
• Specific-performance

Vakalisa v South African Weather Services and Others (J2796/16)

Vakalisa v South African Weather Services and Others (J2796/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 4; [2017] 7 BLLR 729 (LC) (6 January 2017)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J2796/16

Judge

Rabkin-Naicker

The Labour Court held that a clause requiring familiarity with employer policies did not incorporate the SAWS disciplinary policy, so specific performance was refused.

• Specific Performance
• Disciplinary Procedure
• Breach Of Contract
• Section 77 Bcea
• Employment Contract Interpretation
• Specific-performance

Rukwaya and Others v Kitchen Bar Restaurant (J591/2013)

Rukwaya and Others v Kitchen Bar Restaurant (J591/2013) [2016] ZALCJHB 86; (2016) 37 ILJ 1466 (LC) (9 March 2016)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J591/2013

Judge

Bakker

The Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to enforce compliance with a bargaining council collective agreement extended to non-parties where the agreement and section 33A of the LRA prescribe arbitration as the exclusive remedy. The applicants' claim is substantively about non-compliance with the collective agreement, not a breach of individual employment contracts. Section 77(3) of the BCEA cannot be used to circumvent the special dispute resolution mechanisms established by the LRA and the collective agreement. The applicants must pursue their remedies through the Council's enforcement and arbitr…

Source excerpt

• Collective Agreement Enforcement
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Section 77 Bcea
• Section 33a Lra
• Minimum Wage Dispute
• Dispute Resolution Mechanisms