Skip to document content Skip to main menu Skip to search

High Court of South Africa KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg - 2016

3 judgments
Advanced search

Court registries

All years
Filters
  • Filters
  • Judges
  • Labels
  • Alphabet
Sort by:
3 judgments
Citation
Judgment date
October 2016
Edumbe Municipality v Makhoba and Others (1940/2016) [2016] ZAKZPHC 100 (27 October 2016)
Adjudicator’s ruling set aside for applying wrong fund rules, ignoring prescription and key documentary evidence.
Pension Funds Act s30P — High Court may consider merits and substitute Adjudicator’s decision; Adjudicator error — applying wrong fund and wrong regulations; Prescription — s30I and Prescription Act bar time‑expired claims; Evidence — payslips and fund correspondence essential; Condonation — court may grant for slight delay and consider prospects of success.
 27 October 2016
MEC for Transport, Community Safety and Liaison and Another v Transport Appeal Tribunal and Another (2101/2015) [2016] ZAKZPHC 90 (11 October 2016)
The MEC lacked standing to review the Appeal Tribunal’s lawful s58 transfer; s77 bars unauthorised transfers but does not preclude s58-sanctioned transfers.
Administrative law – review of appeal decision – statutory interpretation of s58 and s77 National Land Transport Act – s58 governs lawful transfers (holder’s consent); s77 prohibits unauthorised cession or hiring out but does not void transfers where s58 procedure is followed – locus standi – MEC lacks public-interest or personal standing to challenge Appeal Tribunal decisions – costs for abusive affidavits.
 11 October 2016
August 2016
Mnyandu v Padayachi (AR 162/2014) [2016] ZAKZPHC 78 (1 August 2016)
Reported
A single untrue workplace email, without repetitive or overwhelmingly oppressive conduct, did not constitute harassment under the Act.
Protection from Harassment Act 17 of 2011 – interpretation of "harassment" – requirement of course of conduct (repetition) or single protracted/overwhelmingly oppressive act. Workplace context – Act may apply to employer/employee relations but objective test governs. Objective reasonable-person test – conduct must be oppressive/unacceptable and cause serious alarm, fear or distress. Single untrue email insufficient, on facts, to constitute harassment.
 1 August 2016