South Africa Case Law

City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Another v SAMWU obo Gwejane and Others (JA 06/24)

City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Another v SAMWU obo Gwejane and Others (JA 06/24) [2025] ZALAC 18; [2025] 6 BLLR 545 (LAC); (2025) 46 ILJ 1325 (LAC) (20 March 2025)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA06/24

Judges

Savage, Sutherland, Davis

The Labour Appeal Court upheld a contempt finding against a municipal accounting officer who failed to ensure compliance with an award and court orders.

• Contempt Of Court
• Arbitration Award Enforcement
• Municipal Accountability
• Wilful Noncompliance
• Contempt-of-court
• Arbitration-award-enforcement

Ncube v 4 B Protection Services and Others (J906-20)

Ncube v 4 B Protection Services and Others (J906-20) [2022] ZALCJHB 50 (15 March 2022)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J906-20

Judge

T Deane

The court found that the respondents did not act wilfully or mala fide in failing to comply with the settlement agreement. The impossibility of performance arose because the contract with Amnesty International, which was the only available site for the applicant, was not renewed, and the applicant did not possess the necessary documentation to be legally employed or registered under the Private Security Industry Regulations Act. The respondents made reasonable attempts to place the applicant and believed, in good faith, that the matter would be revisited at the CCMA. The court held that hones…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Settlement Agreement
• Reinstatement
• Wilful Noncompliance

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others v Aircycle Engineering C and Others (J144/21)

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others v Aircycle Engineering C and Others (J144/21) [2021] ZALCJHB 273; (2021) 42 ILJ 2459 (LC); [2021] 12 BLLR 1244 (LC) (8 September 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J144/21

Judge

Prinsloo

The Labour Court dismissed a contempt application to enforce reinstatement, finding no proof that the employees tendered service or that non-compliance was wilful.

• Contempt Of Court
• Reinstatement
• Arbitration Award Enforcement
• Wilful Noncompliance
• Costs In Labour Matters
• Contempt-of-court

AP v S (A33/2019)

AP v S (A33/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 757 (12 August 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A33/2019

Judges

E Molahlehi, L Windell

The appeal court found that the trial court did not err in imposing a custodial sentence for wilful failure to pay maintenance. The appellant's claim of inability to pay was rejected on the facts, and there was no basis for converting the criminal trial into a maintenance inquiry under section 41 of the Maintenance Act. The trial court properly considered the seriousness of the offence, the impact on the complainant and children, and the appellant's lack of remorse. The sentence imposed was not shockingly inappropriate or vitiated by misdirection. The appeal court held that the sentence was f…

Source excerpt

• Maintenance Act
• Failure To Pay Maintenance
• Sentencing Principles
• Wilful Noncompliance
• Spousal And Child Support

Ndabeni v Municipal Manager: OR Tambo District Municipality and Another (1066/19)

Ndabeni v Municipal Manager: OR Tambo District Municipality and Another (1066/19) [2021] ZASCA 8 (21 January 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1066/19

Judges

Petse, Zondi, Dambuza, Eksteen, Poyo-Dlwati

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the municipality’s failure to comply with a declaratory employment order amounted to contempt, and upheld punitive costs.

• Contempt Of Court
• Municipal Staff Establishment
• Declaratory Relief
• Balance Of Probabilities
• Wilful Noncompliance
• Contempt-of-court

Gri Wind Steel South Africa v AMCU and Others (C561/17)

Gri Wind Steel South Africa v AMCU and Others (C561/17) [2017] ZALCCT 60; [2018] 3 BLLR 273 (LC); (2018) 39 ILJ 1045 (LC) (23 November 2017)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C561/17

Judge

A J Steenkamp

The applicant failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that AMCU and the four shop stewards wilfully and mala fide breached the court order. The order against AMCU did not impose positive obligations to take active steps, but only prohibited incitement or encouragement of unlawful acts. The shop stewards' omissions, including inability to identify perpetrators and efforts to intervene, did not meet the threshold for contempt. Applying the Plascon-Evans rule, the respondents' version must be accepted where factual disputes exist. The evidence did not establish wilful and mala fide non-complia…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Protected Strike
• Strike Violence
• Union Liability
• Wilful Noncompliance