Modika v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa and Another (2025/212698) [2025] ZALCJHB 529 (13 November 2025)

Case Note

Case Name: Thebogo Vincent Modika v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa and The Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Citation: Case no: 2025 – 212698
Date: 13 November 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable as it sets a significant precedent regarding the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in urgent interdict applications related to internal disciplinary hearings. The case highlights the Court's authority to intervene in circumstances involving allegations of occupational detriment resulting from protected disclosures under the Protected Disclosures Act. Furthermore, it illustrates the evolving interpretation and applicability of section 188A of the Labour Relations Act (LRA), which provides for pre-dismissal arbitration under certain circumstances.

This judgment is significant as it underscores the necessity for both employees and employers to navigate the complexities of disciplinary proceedings when protected disclosures are involved, affirming the obligations of employers to adhere to the proper statutory frameworks designed to protect whistleblowers. The ruling may also influence future procedures in the Labour Court concerning urgent applications, clarifying the standards required for establishing urgency and compelling reasons for court intervention.

Cases Cited

• Platco Digital (Pty) Ltd v South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd [2024] ZALCJHB 36
• Nxele v National Commissioner: Department of Correctional Services and Others (2018) 39 ILJ 1799 (LC)
• Booysen v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (2011) 32 ILJ 112 (LAC)
• Cibane and Another v Premier of Province of KwaZulu-Natal [2025] 10 BLLR 1004 (LAC)
• Foskor Proprietary Limited v Mamodupi [2023] ZALCJHB 19
• Jiba v Minister: Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (2010) 31 ILJ 112 (LC)
• TSB Sugar RSA Ltd v Dorey (2019) 40 ILJ 1224 (LAC)

Legislation Cited

• Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
• Protected Disclosures Act 26 of 2000

Rules of Court Cited

• Labour Court Rule 38

HEADNOTE

Summary

This case dealt with urgent relief sought by Thebogo Vincent Modika to interdict the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) from proceeding with a disciplinary hearing against him. The applicant asserted that the action constituted an occupational detriment due to a protected disclosure made by him. The Labour Court assessed the jurisdictional prerequisites for such urgent relief, confirming that it possesses jurisdiction to intervene in cases involving alleged occupational detriments resulting from protected disclosures and that compelling reasons merited the intervention when an internal disciplinary hearing was imminent.

Key Issues

The key legal issues in this case included: 1. The jurisdiction of the Labour Court to intervene in ongoing disciplinary processes. 2. The appropriate standards for establishing urgency in applications for interdicts. 3. The implications of a protected disclosure under the Protected Disclosures Act in the context of disciplinary actions.

Held

The Labour Court ruled in favor of Modika, finding that the IDC's internal disciplinary proceedings should be interdicted pending the decision of the CCMA concerning the referral made under section 188A(11). The Court emphasized Modika's right to a pre-dismissal arbitration process and acknowledged that there was a clear risk of serious injustice if the disciplinary hearing were allowed to proceed.

THE FACTS

Modika, a Senior Specialist in Employee Relations at the IDC, alleged that he was subjected to misconduct charges in retaliation for a protected disclosure made on 29 July 2025 regarding systemic bullying and harassment by his direct supervisor, Lydia Mdaka. The disciplinary charges were instituted following the applicant's anonymous report. The applicant sought an urgent interdict to prevent the IDC from proceeding with disciplinary actions scheduled for November 2025. The IDC opposed the interdict, arguing that the applicant's urgency was self-created and contested the relevance of the protected disclosure to the disciplinary matters at hand.

The History of disciplinary actions indicated that while Mdaka initiated the proceedings against Modika shortly after he disclosed his complaints against her, the IDC maintained that these actions were unrelated to the disclosure. The Labour Court was tasked with addressing whether the urgency claimed by Modika was valid and if his allegation of occupational detriment merited relief under the LRA.

THE ISSUES

The key legal questions before the Labour Court included: 1. Did the Labour Court possess jurisdiction to hear Modika's urgent application seeking an interdict? 2. Did Modika adequately establish urgency and exceptional circumstances to warrant the Court's intervention? 3. Did the disciplinary proceedings against Modika suffice to substantiate a claim of occupational detriment under the Protected Disclosures Act?

ANALYSIS

In its analysis, the Labour Court clarified its jurisdiction, reaffirming that it is competent to intervene in disciplinary matters under exceptional circumstances where there is a risk of grave injustice. The Court applied principles from previous judgments to assess urgency, concluding that Modika had acted with sufficient expedition and that significant injustice would occur if the disciplinary proceedings proceeded without consideration of the referral to the CCMA.

The Labour Court addressed the application of section 188A(11) and its role as a mechanism designed to protect employees who claim to have faced occupational detriment due to making a protected disclosure. The Court noted that the referral to the CCMA was a critical procedural step which precluded the IDC from concurrently pursuing internal disciplinary hearings.

The Labour Court emphasized the necessity of an independent process for reviewing allegations of misconduct linked to protected disclosures, noting that the proceedings invoked under section 188A would serve to remove any unfair influences that could taint internal hearsay.

REMEDY

The Labour Court granted the application and interdict with specific conditions detailing that the internal disciplinary proceedings against Modika would be suspended pending a determination by the CCMA regarding whether it would accept the referral under section 188A(11) of the LRA. If the CCMA accepted the referral, the internal proceedings would be terminated entirely.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Key legal principles extracted from this judgment include: 1. The Labour Court has jurisdiction to intervene in disciplinary matters under the LRA in cases of exceptional urgency and potential injustice. 2. The protections afforded under the Protected Disclosures Act create an obligation for employers to respect the integrity of disclosures when instituting disciplinary procedures. 3. Urgency in applications must be substantiated with compelling evidence showing that failure to intervene could result in significant prejudice. 4. Referral of disputes under section 188A(11) of the LRA must be respected; the internal disciplinary processes cannot proceed concurrently with pending pre-dismissal arbitration under CCMA auspices.