Beadica 231 CC and Others v Trustees for the time being of the Oregon Trust and Others (CCT109/19) [2020] ZACC 13; 2020 (5) SA 247 (CC); 2020 (9) BCLR 1098 (CC) (17 June 2020)
Court
Constitutional Court
Case number
CCT109/19
Judges
Khampepe, Froneman, Jafta, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Theron, Tshiqi, Victor
The majority held that the applicants failed to discharge the onus of demonstrating that enforcement of the lease renewal clauses would be contrary to public policy. The renewal clauses were clear, simple, and understandable, and the applicants did not provide a sufficient explanation for their failure to comply. The harsh outcome of eviction and business collapse, absent such explanation, was not enough to render enforcement contrary to public policy. The court reaffirmed that public policy is informed by constitutional values, but that abstract notions of fairness, reasonableness, and good…
Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others v Law Society of the Northern Provinces (005/13) [2013] ZASCA 118; [2013] 11 BLLR 1057 (SCA); [2014] 1 All SA 125 (SCA); 2014 (2) SA 321 (SCA); (2013) 34 ILJ 2779 (SCA) (20 September 2013)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
005/13
Judges
Nugent, Malan, Wallis, Van der Merwe, Swain
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that rule 25(1)(c) of the CCMA rules, which limits the right to legal representation in arbitration proceedings concerning dismissals for misconduct or incapacity, is not unconstitutional. The rule is rationally connected to the legitimate government purpose of providing speedy, inexpensive, and informal dispute resolution for unfair dismissals. The limitation is the product of a historical compromise among social partners and is consistent with the Constitution. There is no absolute right to legal representation in administrative tribunals, and the subrule pr…