Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Labour Law [2025] ZALCJHB 28

NUMSA obo Dismissed Employees Listed in Annexure "A" v M and S Corrosion Sasolburg (Pty) Ltd (J507/2022)

NUMSA obo Dismissed Employees Listed in Annexure "A" v M and S Corrosion Sasolburg (Pty) Ltd (J507/2022) [2025] ZALCJHB 28 (24 January 2025)

Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Case number
J507/2022
Judge
Mahalelo

The court found that the respondent issued a verbal ultimatum to the shop stewards, who conveyed it to the applicants, warning them that participation in the unprotected strike would result in disciplinary action and possible dismissal. The applicants were given sufficient time to reflect on their decision and knowingly chose to proceed with the illegal strike. The evidence showed that the applicants were aware of the consequences and that the respondent followed fair procedure. The seriousness of the misconduct, the prior warnings, and the applicants' refusal to heed the ultimatum justified…

Source excerpt

  • Unprotected Strike
  • Dismissal For Misconduct
  • Ultimatum Requirement
  • Progressive Discipline
  • Substantive Fairness
  • Code Of Good Practice
Read case analysis
Labour Law [2017] ZALAC 55

SACCAWU obo Mokebe and Others v Pick'n Pay Retailers (JA36/16)

SACCAWU obo Mokebe and Others v Pick'n Pay Retailers (JA36/16) [2017] ZALAC 55; [2017] 12 BLLR 1196 (LAC); (2018) 39 ILJ 201 (LAC) (26 September 2017)

Court
Labour Appeal Court
Case number
JA36/16
Judges
Waglay, Kathree-Setiloane, Phatshoane

The Labour Appeal Court found that the dismissals were both procedurally and substantively unfair. The employees participated in an unprotected strike for less than an hour, believing it was protected due to union communication failures. The employer did not issue a written ultimatum as required, nor did it allow individual employees to make representations before dismissal, despite undertaking to do so. The employer acted inconsistently by dismissing only some employees while others who committed the same misconduct received written warnings. The evidence did not support the finding that the…

Source excerpt

  • Unprotected Strike
  • Dismissal Sanction
  • Procedural Fairness
  • Consistency In Discipline
  • Ultimatum Requirement
  • Collective Vs Individual Hearing
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.