<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.3" -->
<?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.w3.org/2000/08/w3c-synd/style.css" type="text/css"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
    <channel>
        <title>Polity.org.za | Magistrates Courts</title>
        <description><![CDATA[Polity.org.za offers a unique take on news, with a focus on political, legal, economic and social issues in South Africa and Africa, as well as international affairs. Polity strives to provide our readers reliable and objective reporting on important issues that drive our society.]]></description>
        <link>https://www.polity.org.za/page/magistrate-courts</link>
        <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 17:45:41 +0200</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>FeedCreator 1.7.3</generator>
        <item>
            <title>Northern Cape Final Directives to be implemented to curb the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic in ...</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/northern-cape-final-directives-to-be-implemented-to-curb-the-spread-of-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-the-district-courts-in-administrative-region-10-northern-cape-2020-zarmc-3-2020-04-15</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Click here to read the full Directives Pursuant to the announcement by the Honourable President Ramaphosa of the National Lockdown for 21 days, from the 26 March 2020 to 16 April 2020, and Pursuant to resolutions of a Cluster meeting (attended by the Chief Magistrate, Senior Magistrates and Sub Cluster Heads) of Administrative Region 10 (Northern Cape) on  24 March 2020; and]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Magistrates Courts</category>
            <pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2020 14:53:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>550616</a_id>
        <updated>1586955289</updated>
        <published>1586955180</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0000866529_resized_gavel2legallaw1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Democratic Alliance v Electoral Commission of South Africa and Others (007/2019) [2019] ZAEC 2 </title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/democratic-alliance-v-electoral-commission-of-south-africa-and-others-0072019-2019-zaec-2-2019-06-21</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii [1] The applicant is the Democratic Alliance (the DA), a political party, registered pursuant to the provisions of the Electoral Commission Act (the ECA).[1] The first Respondent is the Electoral Commission (the Commission), a body established pursuant to Chapter 9 of the Constitution, and which conducts itself in terms of the Electoral Commission Act.[2] The second respondent is the GOOD Party (GOOD), a political party registered pursuant to the provisions of the ECA. The third respondent is the African National Congress (the ANC), a political party registered pursuant to the provisions of the ECA.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Magistrates Courts</category>
            <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2019 09:14:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>523360</a_id>
        <updated>1561101355</updated>
        <published>1561101240</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0000806572_resized_legallawjudiciarycourt1022scales.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Vanachem Vanadium Products (Pty) Ltd V National Union of Metalworkers of SA; Case No J 658 /14</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/vanachem-vanadium-products-pty-ltd-v-national-union-of-metalworkers-of-sa-case-no-j-658-14-2014-08-11</link>
            <description><![CDATA[On the 27th of March 2014 Vanachem Vanadium Products (Pty) Ltd (the applicant) approached the Labour Court on an urgent basis to interdict the intended strike of NUMSA employees (the respondents). In essence, the applicant contended that the demands made by the union on behalf of its members were not demands in support of which a protected strike could be called and that the intended strike action would accordingly be unprotected.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>LABOUR COURT</category>
            <pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2014 12:06:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>341116</a_id>
        <updated>1407751742</updated>
        <published>1407751560</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0000342592_resized_otherbriefs1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Review application - SARS vs. the CCMA in the Labour Court under case number JR 1522/11 heard ...</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/review-application---sars-vs-the-ccma-in-the-labour-court-under-case-number-jr-152211-heard-on-30-august-2013-2014-07-22</link>
            <description><![CDATA[In the year 2000 Mrs. Mahlakoane was unemployed. She was granted a child support grant in respect of her two minor children, in terms of the now repealed Social Assistance Act, 59 of 1992 (“SAA”). On 1 February 2006 the South African Revenue Services (the applicant) employed Mrs. Mahlakoane and accordingly her entitlement to child support grants lapsed. She nevertheless continued to receive the grants in breach of the SAA. When this came to light, the applicant brought Mrs. Mahlakoane before a disciplinary hearing during 2008 on the charge of fraud alternatively breaching the applicant’s disciplinary code in receiving child support grants in contravention of the SAA. Mrs. Mahlakoane contended that she had informed the agency responsible for distributing SAA grants, the South African Social Security Agency (“SASSA”), that she no longer qualified for the grants. She tendered two letters from SASSA that on face value confirmed that she no longer qualified for the grants.]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>Labour Court</category>
            <pubDate>Tue, 22 Jul 2014 16:50:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>338803</a_id>
        <updated>1406040760</updated>
        <published>1406040600</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0000335662_resized_law11022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Marko Shanya vs. Trojan Truck System (Pty) Ltd [2014] (CCMA)</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/marko-shanya-vs-trojan-truck-system-pty-ltd-2014-ccma-2014-06-24</link>
            <description><![CDATA[It is interesting to note that this is a default award. Mr Shanya Marko (the Applicant) was present but Trojan Truck Systems (the Respondent) was absent from the hearing. The Applicant required compensation as relief. The Applicant was employed by the Respondent as a wash bay attendant and on the 20th February 2014, he and a co-worker were taken to a doctor to be tested for drugs. The results of the test were that the Applicant tested positive for cannabis (dagga).]]></description>
            <author>Creamer Media Reporter  </author>
            <category>CCMA</category>
            <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2014 16:12:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>335331</a_id>
        <updated>1403619282</updated>
        <published>1403619120</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0000326075_resized_lawbooksistock1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Matlhako and another / Shoprite (Pty) Ltd [2014] 3 BALR 243 (CCMA)</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/matlhako-and-another-shoprite-pty-ltd-2014-3-balr-243-ccma-2014-05-19</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The two applicants resigned after being given the option of resigning or being arrested for fraud.  They did not want to be taken to the police station and be arrested and they were afraid that if they were arrested they would be blacklisted and would not find employment again. In the light of the definition of constructive dismissal, the applicants had to prove that they resigned under duress, as they alleged.  Duress is a form of intimidation which occurs when a reasonable person fears for the immediate safety of her/his own, property or close family members.]]></description>
            <author>Shannon de Ryhove</author>
            <category>LABOUR COURT</category>
            <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2014 12:39:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>331260</a_id>
        <updated>1400496112</updated>
        <published>1400495940</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0000315084_resized_gavel21022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Case Law: Wood / University of Cape Town [2014] 3 BALR 310 (CCMA)</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/case-law-wood-university-of-cape-town-2014-3-balr-310-ccma-2014-05-05</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Towards the end of 2011 a situation of incompatibility arose between the applicant and two of his colleagues in the respondent’s Graduate School of Business. The respondent proposed that the applicant be transferred (with no loss of benefits) to the School of Management Studies in the Commerce Faculty, which the applicant was not willing to accept as according to him, the transfer amounted to an unfair demotion. Referring to Grogan (Dismissal, Discrimination and Unfair Labour Practices (1ed page 54) the commissioner held:]]></description>
            <author>Shannon de Ryhove</author>
            <category>SA LABOUR GUIDE</category>
            <pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2014 14:56:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>329675</a_id>
        <updated>1399294701</updated>
        <published>1399294560</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0000311248_resized_law11022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Moloi / Macsteel Service Centres (VRN Reef) [2014] 2 BALR 117 (MEIBC)</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/moloi-macsteel-service-centres-vrn-reef-2014-2-balr-117-meibc-2014-04-08</link>
            <description><![CDATA[After being charged with sexual harassment, the applicant on 8 March 2013 in an email with “resignation” in the subject line, informed the employer that: “Seeing that Macsteel VRN’s future is not that bright and its business taking a nose dive and that soon enough most of its employees won’t have jobs anyway, I have decided to jump ship in order to focus on steering my own little ship which I have been privately building with the little remuneration that you have been paying me for the past 8 years of service to you.]]></description>
            <author>Shannon de Ryhove</author>
            <category>LABOUR COURT</category>
            <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2014 16:12:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>326857</a_id>
        <updated>1396966605</updated>
        <published>1396966320</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0000304431_resized_lawbooksistock1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Shozi and others / Pecton Outsourcing Solutions CC [2014] 2 BALR 207 (CCMA)</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/shozi-and-others-pecton-outsourcing-solutions-cc-2014-2-balr-207-ccma-2014-04-01</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The respondent, a labour broker, supplied approximately 400 employees to its only client, Unilever SA who, in 2013, insisted that the employees’ rate of pay be reduced. Unilever SA informed respondent that if it did not agree to the reduction Unilever SA would terminate the service contract with it. The respondent then reduced the salaries of the employees. This led to anger and the respondent then negotiated a salary increase of 7.5% with Unilever SA. The employees nevertheless demanded that ...]]></description>
            <author>Shannon de Ryhove</author>
            <category>case law</category>
            <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:11:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>325986</a_id>
        <updated>1396350808</updated>
        <published>1396350660</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0000302197_resized_gavelandscalesofjustice1022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Solidarity obo Bakkes Sarel / Nampak Divfood [2014] 2 BALR 157 (MEIBC)</title>
            <link>https://www.polity.org.za/article/solidarity-obo-bakkes-sarel-nampak-divfood-2014-2-balr-157-meibc-2014-04-01</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The applicant referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the Bargaining Council.  The respondent placed the dismissal in dispute. He was served with a notice to attend a disciplinary enquiry on 1 July 2011, resigned on 17 June 2011 and withdrew his resignation in writing on 20 June 2011.  At the disciplinary hearing the chairperson issued a guilty finding on 3 August 2011 but did not issue a sanction on the ground that the employment relationship terminated on 31 July 2011.]]></description>
            <author>Shannon de Ryhove</author>
            <category>CASE LAW</category>
            <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2014 13:09:00 +0200</pubDate>
        <a_id>325985</a_id>
        <updated>1396350688</updated>
        <published>1396350540</published>
        <expires>99999999999</expires>
        <editor>Creamer Media Reporter  </editor>
        <has_video>0</has_video>
        <has_audio>0</has_audio>
        <image_url>https://cisp.cachefly.net/assets/articles/images/resized/0000302193_resized_law11022.jpg</image_url>
        <image_title></image_title>
        <image_width>511</image_width>
        <image_height>287</image_height>
        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>
