Southern African Legal Information Institute (SAFLII)

Daily update ☕️ : ZALCJHB🏛️-Legal representation- Employee dismissed after motor vehicle accident- For a more detailed view 👉 : https://lnkd.in/duWc2QMr

LEGAL REPRESENTATION AT THE CCMA Mr Moimana was dismissed following a disciplinary hearing into allegations of violating the company’s driving policy and damage to company property, after a motor vehicle accident. The employee referred his dispute to the CCMA shortly after his dismissal and the matter was subsequently enrolled for con-arb at the CCMA. The commissioner found the dismissal of the employee was substantively unfair, ordered reinstatement and payment of four months’ backpay. This is an application for review, seeking to set aside the arbitration award. The applicant (company) contended that the commissioner misconducted himself by: allowing the employee’s attorney to be present during the conciliation phase of the con-arb hearing; and failing to deal with the issue of legal representation and permitting the employee to be legally represented during the arbitration phase of the con-arb hearing, without the employee having made any application for legal representation, as required by Rule 25 of the CCMA Rules. The applicant had objected to the presence of Mr Banda (the employee’s legal representative) during the conciliation process. It was argued that the commissioner nevertheless failed to exclude Banda from the proceedings, in breach of the Rules. In terms of the commissioner’s decision to allow the employee’s legal representative to be present during the conciliation phase of the con-arb hearing, this constituted a reviewable irregularity. The commissioner stated that prior to the commencement of the hearing, the employee’s legal representative filed an application to represent the employee. There is no such application in the record, nor was any application referred to in the transcript of proceedings. Regarding the arbitration, the commissioner allowed the employee to be legally represented, yet did not give the applicant an opportunity to obtain legal representation in order to level the playing field. Banda indicated that the complexity of the matter and questions of law were the basis for the employee requiring legal representation. Once the commissioner had so determined, it was an essential requirement of procedural fairness to both parties that the applicant was also allowed legal representation, if it wanted it, as it equally had the right to legal representation. The applicant’s manager was a layperson. When one considers the record, it is clear that the applicant did not have the same or even remotely the same legal experience as the employee’s legal representative. The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the CCMA for arbitration de novo before a different commissioner. There is no order as to costs. Fraser Alexander (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR710/21) [2025] ZALCJHB 110 (14 March 2025) https://lnkd.in/duWc2QMr

Ekapa Minerals (Pty) Ltd and Another v Sol Plaatje Local Municipality and Others (CCT 119/23) [2025] ZACC 1 Summary: [municipal property rates] — [principle of legality] — [section 172(1)(b)] — [just and equitable relief] — [review proceedings] 👉: https://lnkd.in/dnDti_3J

SAFLII Weekly National and Provincial Gazette Update.

HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND ALLEGATIONS OF "K" WORD AT WORK The appellant, CTP Gravure, operates as a printing company engaged in the printing of magazines and brochures. The employee, Mr Hlongwane, commenced employment with the appellant in 2005, and at the time of his dismissal, he was employed as an operator. The employee further served as a shop steward of the union. The employee attended a section 189A facilitation meeting where he alleged that the appellant had engaged the employment services of nine casual workers. A heated discussion later ensued, regarding these allegations, between the employee and Logtenberg, the Divisional Managing Director. The employee lodged an internal grievance against Logtenberg, alleging that he had used abusive language towards him. Lawrence, the Production Manager, later came to learn, from numerous employees, that the employee was alleging that Logtenberg had used the “k” word during their confrontation. The employee was fired after a disciplinary hearing in his absence, on charges that he made false, malicious and damning allegations against Logtenberg, in that he misrepresented the fact that Logtenberg referred to him by using the “k” word. In the arbitration award, the arbitrator at the bargaining council refused to admit the hearsay evidence led by the appellant, and, as no other evidence was presented to sustain its case that the employee had committed the misconduct alleged, it was determined that the appellant failed to establish any wrongful conduct on the part of the employee and the dismissal was found to be unfair. The Labour Court dismissed the review application. The arbitrator only made his ruling on the admissibility of the hearsay evidence in his arbitration award. The prejudice to the parties, particularly the party leading the hearsay evidence, in receiving a belated section 3(1)(c) ruling on the admissibility of its evidence at judgment or award stage is obvious: such party leading the hearsay evidence is unable to decide whether to lead further evidence in light of the ruling. However, in this case not only did the arbitrator find that the hearsay evidence was oral in nature, he also found that the evidence presented by Lawrence, in respect of specific employees, constituted third or even fourth-hand hearsay evidence where the employees who had reported to Lawrence had heard the rumour from their fellow co-workers or the “shop floor”. Importantly, it was the evidence of the appellant that it had no intention to call the other employees to give evidence against the “errant” employee. The court does not believe that there are sufficient grounds to set aside a (on the whole) reasonable arbitration award in a case where the appellant’s case was solely based on a workplace rumour.

Medupe and Others v African National Congress and Others (003/2024) [2025] ZASCA 22 Summary: Administrative law – constitution of a voluntary association – interpretation of rule 12.2.4 of the African National Congress constitution – the constitution the rules and regulations issued in terms thereof, constitute an agreement between members and the voluntary association – to be interpreted in accordance with principles applicable to the construction of contracts – legal principles restated. 👉: https://lnkd.in/eP33wV2P

FAMILY DISPUTE AND CURATOR BONIS The applicant noticed significant cognitive decline in his father, the respondent, leading to concerns about his capacity to manage his affairs. The respondent, a 79-year-old restaurateur with significant assets, including the well-known Willoughby’s restaurant, has shown signs of dementia, including memory loss, impaired judgment and difficulty managing his affairs. The applicant alleges that his sister and aunt, along with their spouses, have taken control of their father’s finances and restricted his communication with him. Two medical practitioners, Dr Spammer and Dr Mason, confirmed the respondent’s cognitive decline and recommended the appointment of a curator. Despite the respondent’s claims of having a trusted support system, his cognitive decline, particularly in executive function, severely impacts his ability to make informed decisions. There are concerns about potential exploitation by family members and the cancellation of follow-up medical appointments. The medical evidence, including the reports of Dr Spammer and Dr Mason, supported the need for a curator. An independent expert, Prof Niehaus, appointed to review the medical evidence, confirmed the need for a curator. The applicant had proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent suffers from a major neurocognitive disorder (dementia) that renders him incapable of managing his affairs. The respondent’s trusted support system was insufficient to protect him from potential exploitation and mismanagement of his assets. The need for the curator to investigate family tensions and propose ways to reduce acrimony was emphasized, given the deep divisions within the family. The papers are sadly replete with the reality that the financial success of the applicant and the wealth of the family had resulted or contributed in significant conflict and deep division within the family. Different caucus groups have formed together with outsiders actively opposing each other, creating a hostile, combative and tense atmosphere. It is apparent however that during this feud, suspicions and negative emotions towards polarised groups, anger, resentment, bitterness and self-preservation have become a prevalent feature within the family dynamic. It is hard to imagine that a young Jens Tibshraeny, with the support of his wife, Elizabeth, had started a business which had boomed into success with hard work and sacrifice, only to have its exponential achievements haunt them in their old age and divide their family. Tibshraeny v Tibshraeny (5299/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 117 (18 March 2025) https://lnkd.in/dwtY6BUy

PURE ECONOMIC LOSS AND HIJACKED BUILDING Changing Tides is the owner of a property in Jeppe Street, Johannesburg, on which is fixed an 11-story building known as Chung Hau Mansions. It brought an application to evict approximately 249 men, women and children who were unlawfully occupying the property. The property was colloquially referred to as a "hijacked building". An order was granted in 2012 in terms of which the City of Johannesburg was directed to provide all those whose names appear in the document entitled "List of Residents of Chung Hua Mansions” with temporary shelter where they may live secure against eviction, in a location as near as possible to the area where the property is situated, by a certain date, provided that they are still resident at the property and have not voluntarily vacated it. Changing Tides contended that the City’s failure to comply with the order not only caused it to suffer financial damages but was also wrongful and resulted in the infringement of the occupier’s right to adequate housing in terms of section 26(1) of the Constitution in that it left them to live in increasingly squalid and dangerous conditions. Further, it deprived Changing Tides of its right to property in contravention of section 25(1) of the Constitution for three years in that it could not renovate the property and rent it out to students until early in 2017, when it ought to have been able to do so in early 2014. Changing Tides’s case is one of pure economic loss. It was apparent that the City failed to accommodate the occupiers and that the accommodation tendered was either non-existent, inadequate or unacceptable. On behalf of Changing Tides, it was submitted that the City of Johannesburg lacked the political will or intention to comply with its legal and constitutional duty, and its supine attitude resulted in an ongoing breach of the rights and caused Changing Tides to suffer financial loss. In circumstances where the City of Johannesburg agreed to the dates set out in order, in the full knowledge of all the relevant factors, Changing Tides submitted that there could be no question that the latter’s wrongful conduct was, at best, grossly reckless. The court agree with Changing Tides. Changing Tides suffered a loss of income for three years. The expert witnesses have agreed on the quantum of damages. The conduct of the City and its Stalingrad approach to the litigation from the commencement of the dispute justifies an order of costs on a punitive scale between the attorney and own client. The City must pay the plaintiff damages in the amount of R12,374,993 with mora interest of 11,75% per annum from the date of summons to the date of final payment. Changing Tides 74 (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg (40135/2016) [2025] ZAGPJHC 279 (14 March 2025) https://lnkd.in/dxtaCXsp

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY — CHAIRS AT WORK The chief inspector of Occupational Health and Safety had upheld contravention notices issued by inspectors under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993 (OHSA). The notices alleged that the appellant, Truworths, had failed to comply with Regulation 8(b) of the Facilities Regulations (FR), which requires employers to provide seating facilities for employees who normally work standing, where reasonably practicable. The inspectors directed Truworths to provide seats with backrests at cash desks in two of its stores. Truworths appealed to the Labour Court under section 35(3) of OHSA, seeking to set aside the contravention notices and the chief inspector’s decision. What the two inspectors needed to consider, when conducting an inspection in the stores of the appellant, relating to compliance with section 8 of the FR, were the following factors. First, are employees that perform their work whilst seated provided with an ergonomically sound seat? The answer is that this is not applicable, as the employees do not ordinarily perform their work whilst seated. Second, are the employees that ordinarily perform their work standing in the store provided with an opportunity to sit in order to rest? The answer to this question was in the affirmative. And finally, are seats with backrests provided where the work performed by employees allow for such seats to be used? The answer to this last consideration is also that it is not appliable, because the employees do not perform their work whilst seated. It follows that section 8 of the FA was not contravened. The inspectors did not seem to understand what their duties actually were, and gave unfounded directions based on a misapplication of the FR. The inspectors had not been issued with the required certificates under section 28(2) of OHSA, rendering their inspections and contravention notices invalid. Even if the certificates were not required, the inspectors had misapplied Regulation 8(b) by dictating where seating should be placed without considering what was "reasonably practicable." The inspectors failed to assess whether seating was available elsewhere in the stores or whether the employees' work could be effectively performed while sitting. The chief inspector further erred by placing an onus on Truworths to prove that providing seating at the cash desks was not reasonably practicable and by considering an irrelevant factor (the lack of a hazard assessment) that was not raised in the contravention notices. The appeal was upheld. The contravention notices were set aside.

Aveng Mining Shafts and Underground v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (1192/2023) [2025] ZASCA 20 Summary: Value-Added Tax Act 89 of 1991 (the Act) – vendor conducting enterprise of shaft sinking and mining construction activities – whether input tax on charges for accommodation and food acquired by vendor for specific project employees deductible from output tax – s 17(2)(a)(i)(bb) of the Act – whether accommodation and food acquired for making taxable supplies of entertainment in the ordinary course of vendor’s enterprise – whether supplied to employees for a charge – if so, whether all direct and indirect costs of such entertainment covered. 👉: https://lnkd.in/dZynCz89