SUMMARY Glencore Holdings (Pty) Limited (“the Employer”) dismissed Sibeko (“the Employee”) following an investigation in which it was discovered that the Employee had failed to follow stipulated workplace protocol, namely for failing to wear ear muffs. The Employee chose to refer the matter to arbitration, as he was adamant that he was not guilty of
By Chantelle Gladwin-Wood, Partner and Maike Gohl, Senior Associate   Introduction This article examines the instances in which the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (“COJ”) charges residential property owners business rates, the legality thereof, and what a consumer faced with such a problem can do about it.   Legal Basis for Levying Rates The relevant
SUMMARY The judgment pertains to three cases which relate to Rule 43(2) and (3) applications[1]. All three of the Rule 43(2) applications before the Court contained affidavits and annexures in excess of what may be strictly necessary for applications of this nature. The Court was required to determine whether the relevant affidavits deposed to by
SUMMARY The factual background from which this judgment arises concerns an Automatically Unfair Dismissal dispute. Sky Services (Pty) Limited (“the Employer”) dismissed S N (“the Employee”) following a comprehensive enquiry into the health of the Employee in which he was declared unfit to work as a packer. At the heart of the Employee’s contention was
SUMMARY Pacific Paramount Properties (Pty) Ltd (the Applicant) applied for the eviction of the Respondents from commercial premises in Camps Bay. The Western Cape High Court (the Court) considered whether the Applicant lacked the locus standi to sue for the eviction of the Respondents by virtue of a cession contained in a mortgage bond. When
SUMMARY Background A group of individuals in the Northern Cape had acquired NC Housing Services and Development Co Limited (the “Company”) that was to be utilised as a company to pursue commercial ventures in the Northern Cape. A dispute arose between Mr Mosalasuping Morudi (the “First Applicant”) and 70 other Applicants (collectively referred to as
SUMMARY The issue at the centre of this appeal concerned the question as to whether the Board, which owes its existence to s 25 read with s 27 of the Attorneys’ Act 53 of 1979 (the Act), holds liability for the loss of monies deposited by Prevance, into the trust account of Mr Robert Victor
SUMMARY This is a review application of an arbitration award in an unfair dismissal disciplinary dispute. Lebogang Teteme (“Third Respondent”) was employed as a drill rig supervisor and was dismissed for failing to adhere to safety working procedures. Despite other employees committing the same violation, he was singled out by the employer and dismissed. The
SUMMARY The Appellant is Zitonix (Pty) Ltd, a fashion retail company which traded with several different brands, in shopping centres throughout the country. The Appellant, represented by its sole Director, Mr Marcel Joubert (“Joubert”), entered into 5 commercial leases with Old Mutual Property Management Services (Pty) Ltd, acting on behalf of   K201250042 (South Africa) (Pty)
SUMMARY The Appellant was charged and sentenced to undergo 36 months imprisonment for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm for hitting the Complainant in the eye causing him to lose his eye. The Magistrate granted the appellant leave to appeal his conviction and sentence, however, the appellant was refused bail pending the appeal.