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
Mdlulu v National Housing Finance Corporation (J841/2024) [2024] ZALCJHB 346 (23 August 2024)
The Labour Court struck the application off the roll for lack of urgency, finding the applicant’s delay self-created and substantial redress still available.
Seetelo v South African Heritage Resource Agency and Another (J 685/2022) [2022] ZALCJHB 164 (20 June 2022)
Urgent labour application struck off the roll after the court found no urgency in a salary-deduction dispute tied to exhausted sick leave.
SAMWU obo Mabena v Maluti-A-Phufong Water SOC Ltd (J1051/19) [2020] ZALCJHB 256 (1 September 2020)
The applicant failed to establish a clear right to the relief sought, as she did not comply with her contractual obligations to render services and exhausted her sick leave entitlement under the collective agreement. The employment contract and collective agreement limited paid sick leave, and the applicant's absence exceeded this entitlement. The respondent's obligation to pay salary is reciprocal to the applicant's obligation to work, and specific performance cannot be enforced where the applicant has not performed her part. The acting CEO's authority to suspend the salary remains valid unt…
Source excerpt
Glencore (Proprietary) Limited v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR1251/2014) [2018] ZALCJHB 289; (2018) 39 ILJ 2536 (LC) (11 September 2018)
The Labour Court found that the Commissioner had misconceived the nature of the enquiry, ignored relevant and material evidence, and failed to properly apply his mind to the issues at hand. The Commissioner did not adequately assess the reliability and credibility of the evidence regarding Manyoni's absence and notification attempts, nor did he resolve factual disputes about the reasons for absence and notification to the supervisor. The Commissioner incorrectly relied on the submission of medical certificates at the appeal hearing as sufficient justification for prolonged absence, disregardi…
Source excerpt
Gangaram v MEC for the Department of Health, Kwazulu-Natal and Another (DA9/16) [2017] ZALAC 38; (2017) 38 ILJ 2261 (LAC); [2017] 11 BLLR 1082 (LAC) (13 June 2017)
The Labour Appeal Court held that the employee was not lawfully deemed dismissed under the Public Service Act because her sick leave forms and medical certificates justified her absence.
Bagshaw Footwear (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (P31/13) [2016] ZALCPE 3 (12 February 2016)
Review of CCMA award dismissed. The Labour Court held that the commissioner reasonably found the employer’s sick-leave policy unfair and inconsistent with the collective agreement.
Sebatana v Ratton Local Municipality and Another (J 2069/11) [2015] ZALCJHB 8 (21 January 2015)
The Labour Court held that a sick-leave remuneration dispute under a collective agreement had to be referred to the Bargaining Council, and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.
Spies v National Commissioner of South African Police Service and Others (J173/08) [2008] ZALC 12; (2008) 29 ILJ 2022 (LC) (6 February 2008)
The Labour Court dismissed an urgent bid to reinstate a police employee’s salary and benefits, finding no prima facie right and no basis to bypass bargaining-council procedures.
Spies v National Commissioner of South African Police Service and Others (J173/08) [2008] ZALCJHB 66 (6 February 2008)
Urgent application to reinstate a police employee’s salary and benefits was dismissed. The court held the dispute concerned collective-agreement interpretation for the bargaining council.
Greyling v ISCOR (233/83) [1984] ZASCA 156 (29 November 1984)
The court found that the respondent failed to prove any contractual, regulatory, or common law basis for recovering the salary paid to the appellant for sick leave taken in excess of his entitlement. The relevant leave regulation only allowed for deduction from future leave, not repayment upon termination. Furthermore, the respondent did not establish that the payments were made due to a reasonable mistake, as required for condictio indebiti. The respondent also failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding its counterclaim based on the promissory note, as the appellant's evidence of inca…
Source excerpt
Explore more
