Legalinfo-Comprehensive & updated Case law libraries, auto suggest keywords, keyword highlighting and blazing fast searches
Legalinfo. South African Case law, Legislation, Labour Law. Search,libraries, Knowledge, ccma case law, Labour Court case law Legalinfo Menu




Legalinfo-Comprehensive and updated Case law libraries, auto suggest keywords, keyword highlighting and blazing fast searches

Tick the jurisdictions you wish to search below

  Constitutional Court      Supreme Court of Appeal      Labour Court     Recent CCMA      All CCMA   Industrial Court      High Court      Legislation      Articles      LRA Sections   

Submit Reset
Scroll down for the search results

Latest Cases

Absa Bank Limited v Johan Serfontein and Another ZASCA February 2025 Summary: National Credit Act 34 of 2005 (the NCA) - acknowledgement of debt and power of attorney - whether a 'supplementary agreement' containing unlawful provisions listed in s 90(2) - severance of unlawful provisions not reasonably possible - entire acknowledgment of debt and power of attorney declared unlawful from the date it took effect.

Ngcobo v The State ZASCA February 2025. FLYNOTES: CRIMINAL - Evidence - Single witness - Trial court erroneously found corroboration for evidence of witness in photographic evidence - Failed to appreciate material contradictions in his evidence - Wrongly rejected appellant's alibi - Magistrate refused to allow appellant's attorney to present witness statements - Descended into arena at critical stage of the trial, where she should have allowed prosecutor to prove State's case - Several irregularities rendered trial unfair. Appeal upheld.

SACWU OBO JERRY THABO TSOARI v Rarolla Disputes (pty) ltd (LC). Summary: Whether the parties' failure to complete the prescribed form 7.19 vitiated the inquiry by the second respondent in terms of Section 188A of the LRA. Court held that there was nonetheless substantial compliance.
Whether the second inquiry constituted double jeopardy after the third respondent had issued the applicant with a final written warning. Court held that the inquiry by the second respondent constituted double jeopardy. The phrase "and/or" I "bastard conjuction" considered.

Segwana N.O v South African Board for Sheriffs 2025 ZAGPPHC. FLYNOTES: COSTS - De bonis propriis - Misleading court - Application to compel issuing of Fidelity Fund Certificate for sheriff - Disciplinary process and findings that applicant not fit and proper - Applicant and attorney knew about process for cancellation of certificate - Attorney not to perpetuate client's dishonesty - Applicant liable for 50% of costs on attorney-client scale - Attorney liable for 50% of costs on attorney-client scale, de bonis propriis.

Mudolo and Others (CC/07/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 59 (24 January 2025). FLYNOTES: CRIMINAL - Legal representation - Withdrawal - Insufficient funding from client - Applications for withdrawal and postponement were tactical manoeuvres to further delay trial - Not brought in good faith or timeously - Accused had access to funds from abroad and did not qualify for legal aid - Legal representatives had been aware of financial situation but chose to remain on record - Accepted partial payments - Lack of funding not valid reason for last-minute postponement or withdrawal

South African Arms and Ammunition Dealers' Association NPO and Others v Sikhakhane Head: Central Firearms Registry and Others (146697-2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 61 (22 January 2025). FLYNOTES: LEGISLATION - Firearms - Serial number on barrel - Unitary barrel - Legal interpretation of provision - Regulations suggest that barrel can be unchambered, partially chambered, or pre-chambered - Serial number on chamber portion of barrel satisfies requirement - Firearms with unitary barrels and properly engraved serial numbers on chamber and other prescribed parts may be transferred and sold under permanent import permits - Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000, s 23.

KENNETH SKHOSANA v COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION (LC). Summary: Application to review jurisdictional ruling. CCMA incorrectly found that no individual has standing to refer a dispute over the interpretation or application of a collective agreement in terms of sections 24(2) and (5) of the LRA. Examination of collective agreement shows that the applicant misinterpreted its provisions relating to trade union leave. Although applicant had standing to refer dispute, review application is dismissed on the merits.

Footer Page