Policy, Law, Economics and Politics - Deepening Democracy through Access to Information
This privately-owned website is operated and maintained by Creamer Media
We have detected that the browser you are using is no longer supported. As a result, some content may not display correctly.
We suggest that you upgrade to the latest version of any of the following browsers:
         
close notification
10 February 2012
   
 
 
Article by: Creamer Media Reporter
 
 
 
 
DOWNLOAD
Billiton v Khanyile - 76 KB
 

The issue presented in this matter is whether there is a constitutional duty on an appellate or review court to fashion a just and equitable remedy by having regard to facts that occurred after the decision appealed against or taken on review. This issue has arisen only because of systemic delays in the dispute resolution system under the provisions of the Labour Relations Act (the LRA). There can be no question that systemic delay of this kind undermines confidence in the courts and that urgent steps need to be taken to alleviate and eradicate them. Whether their occurrence creates constitutional duties for courts to create remedies where none previously existed is a different and more complicated issue to determine. The conclusion reached here is that the facts of the present case do not compel the creation of a remedy different to the one granted in the tribunal of first instance. What follows explains the road travelled to arrive at this conclusion.

Edited by: Creamer Media Reporter
 
 
 
 
  Photos
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Advertisements:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sishen Iron Ore Company (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Mineral Resources and Others (28980/10) [2012] ZAGPPHC 2
 
 
North Gauteng High Court
Tarfix (Pty) Ltd v MEC, Department of Public Works and Rural Development, Free State Province and Another (3452/2010) [2012] ZAFSHC 7
 
 
Free State High Court
C and Others v Department of Health and Social Development, Gauteng and Others (CCT 55/11) [2012] ZACC 1
 
 
Constitutional Court
Bhushula v Ukhahlamba District Municipality (2200/09) [2012] ZAECGHC 1
 
 
Eastern Cape High Court
 
Slipknot Investments 777 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Eastern Cape Liquor Board and Others (EL 861/2011, ECD 1294/2011) [2011] ZAECELLC 17
 
 
Eastern Cape High Court
Eskom Holdings Ltd v National Union of Mineworkers and Others (840/2010) [2011] ZASCA 229
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
Equity Aviation Services (Pty) Ltd v South African Transport and Allied Workers Union and Others (478/09) [2011] ZASCA 232
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
Road Accident Fund v Lechner (711/10) [2011] ZASCA 240
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
 
Industrial Corporation of South Africa Ltd v PFE International Inc. (BVI) and Others (910/10) [2011] ZASCA 245
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
TEB Properties CC v MEC, Department of Health and Social Development, North West (792/10) [2011] ZASCA 243
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
Visser v Mopani District Municipality and Others (641/10) [2011] ZASCA 248
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
Rademan v Moqhaka Municipality and Others (173/11) [2011] ZASCA 244
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
 
 
 
case law page
 
 
more  
 
 
 
 
 
Online Publishers Association