THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, POLOKWANE
Not Reportable
Case No: JR443/18
In the matter between:
SEHWANA, MATEBETA ABRAM 1
st Applicant
RATSOMA, ANN 2
nd Applicant
LEGODI, JACK 3
rd Applicant
LEGWADI, LUCAS 4th Applicant
LEGWADI, MARIA 5
th Applicant
MABOTJA, COLLINS 6th Applicant
MANGANYI, BERNARD 7th Applicant
MOKWENA, MOSES 8
th Applicant
MOTHAPO, MOSES 9
th Applicant
2
MOTHAPO, CHRISTINA 10th Applicant
MANOKO, RETHABILE 11th Applicant
MOTHAPO, SARAH 12
th Applicant
MADUBANYA, MARIA 13th Applicant
MOKWENA, VELMINAH 14th Applicant
LETSOALO, MAGDELINE 15th Applicant
MOLEPO, ELSI 16
th Applicant
MABITSELA, FRANK 17th Applicant
CHWEU, HELLEN 18
th Applicant
KGASAGO, CHUENI 19th Applicant
BALOYI, ELIZABETH 20th Applicant
LEKALA, BENNY 21st Applicant
RAMOROKA, ISAAC 22nd Applicant
SELEPE, SILVER 23rd Applicant
MAFOIKA, CRAUSE 24
th Applicant
MPHELA, KENNETH 25
th Applicant
3
MATLOU, PAULINA 26th Applicant
RAMMALA, VINCENT 27
th Applicant
MAHUMA, TITUS 28
th Applicant
MABOTJA, BERNARD 29
th Applicant
and
MERIBRITE (PTY) LTD (BENDOR ENGEN) Respondent
Heard: 25 and 26 August 2025
Delivered: 28 August 2025 (In Court)
JUDGMENT
MAKHURA, J
[1] The trial in this matter proceeded unopposed after the respondent failed to appear
on 25 and 26 August 2025. The Court was satisfied that the respondent was properly
served with the notice of set down on 30 June 2025. In addition, the Registrar issued
and served two directives on both parties on 31 July 2025 and 11 August 2025,
respectively. These directives have both reminded the parties that the trial wa s
scheduled for 25 August 2025.
4
[2] This is a claim in terms of section 191(5)(b)(iii) read with section 191(11) of the
Labour Relations Act1 (LRA). The facts of the matter appear from the statement of claim
and the evidence of the applicants’ sole witness, Abram Sehwana (Sehwana).
[3] Sehwana was employed as a supervisor. He testified that on 12 April 2017, the
plaintiffs reported for duty for their 6h00 shift as normal . At approximately 8h00, one
Lola
2, the respondent’s Administration Manager informed them that there was a protest
action and that the protesters were moving towards the direction of their workplace.
Sehwana then approached management , Elsie Roelofsz (the General Manager ), and
Sambie Potgieter, to raise and discuss the issue. Management then directed the
applicants to remove their uniforms due to concerns about the protesters. The
applicants removed their uniforms. Shortly thereafter, some of the customers alerted the
applicants to the situation and that the protesters were moving towards the respondent’s
direction.
[4] This promoted a further meeting between management and the applicants .
Management asked the applicants to gather at the assembly area. Roelofsz, Potgieter ,
and Lola were in attendance. After discussing the issue, the parties agreed that due to
the protest action, the respondent would close the premises, the applicants would knock
off and return to work the following day , 13 April 2017. The parties also agreed that the
applicants would not be paid their wages for the day. In accordance with the agreement,
the applicants knocked off and went home.
[5] On 13 April 2025, the applicants reported for duty . However, they found that the
respondent had locked them out . When they enquired, Roelofsz and Potgieter informed
them that they were dismissed for participating in an unprotected strike on 12 April
2017. The applicants were dismissed without disciplinary hearing. Their dismissal was
2017. The applicants were dismissed without disciplinary hearing. Their dismissal was
communicated verbally on the spot, rather than after a disciplinary hearing on 26 April
2017, as the respondent had claimed in its statement of response.
1 Act 66 of 1995, as amended.
2 Sehwana testified that he did not know Lola’s surname.
5
[6] The applicants seek an order declaring their dismissal substantively and
procedurally unfair, along with reinstatement or compensation. Sehwana’s evidence
was that, based on the way they were dismissed and what happened afterward, he
believes that the trust relationship has been negatively affected.
[7] Having considered the applicants’ case, their dismissal is found to be procedurally
and substantively unfair. In the applicants’ own version, the circumstances around their
dismissal are such that a continued employment relationship would be intolerable.
3 In
the circumstances, the appropriate remedy would be compensation.
[8] In terms of section 194 of the LRA, the Court should award a just and equitable
remedy of no more than 12 months. Having considered the way the applicants were
dismissed, without any allegations of misconduct or a hearing, and in the absence of
any evidence to suggest otherwise, I see no reason to deprive the applicants of
maximum compensation. Accordingly, it would be just and equitable for the applicants
to be awarded maximum compensation, calculated at their monthly rate at the time of
their dismissal . The details of their earnings appear in the pre- trial minute addendum
served on the respondent, which forms part of the trial bundle.
[9] In the premises, the following order is made:
Order
1. The applicants’ dismissal is declared procedurally and substantively
unfair.
2. The respondent is ordered, within 15 court days of this judgment and
order, to pay each of the applicants 12 months’ compensation, as follows:
2.1. Sehwana, Matebeta Abram = R79 888.00 (R6657.34 x 12)
2.2. Ratsoma, Ann = R77 262.96 (R6438.58 x 12)
3 Section 193(2)(b) of the LRA.
6
2.3. Legodi, Jack = R66 066.00 (R5505.5 x 12)
2.4. Legwadi, Lucas = R66 066.00 (R5505.5 x 12)
2.5. Legwadi, Maria = R48 240.00 (R4020.00 x 12)
2.6. Mabotja, Collins = R69 672.00 (R5806.00 x 12)
2.7. Manganyi, Bernard = R69 672.00 (R5806.00 x 12)
2.8. Mokwena, Moses = R69 672.00 (R5806.00 x 12)
2.9. Mothapo, Moses = R77 262.96 (R6438.58 x 12)
2.10. Mothapo, Christina = R77 978.64 (R6498.22 x 12)
2.11. Manoko, Rethabile = R43 200.00 (R3600.00 x 12)
2.12. Mothapo, Sarah = R48 240.00 (R4020.00 x 12)
2.13. Madubanya, Maria = R48 240.00 (R4020.00 x 12)
2.14. Mokwena, Velminah = R43 200.00 (R3600.00 x 12)
2.15. Letsoalo, Magdeline = R43 200.00 (R3600.00 x 12)
2.16. Molepo, Elsi = R43 200.00 (R3600.00 x 12)
2.17. Mabitsela, Frank = R43 200.00 (R3600.00 x 12)
2.18. Chweu, Hellen = R66 317.28 (R5526.44 x 12)
2.19. Kgasago, Chueni = R50 160.00 (R4180.00 x 12)
2.20. Baloyi, Elizabeth = R48 240.00 (R4020.00 x 12)
2.21. Lekala, Benny = R78 672.00 (R6556.00 x 12)
2.22. Ramoroka, Isaac = R50 160.00 (R4180.00 x 12)
2.23. Selepe, Silver = R66 317.28 (R5526.44 x 12)
2.24. Mafoika, Crause = R84 684.00 (R7057.00 x 12)
2.25. Mphela, Kenneth = R65 946.00 (R5495.50 x 12)
2.26. Matlou, Paulina = R75 778.56 (R6314.88 x 12)
2.27. Rammala, Vincent = R43 200.00 (R3600.00 x 12)
2.28. Mahuma, Titus = R69 672.00 (R5806.00 x 12)
2.29. Mabotja, Bernard = R69 600.00 (5800.00 x 12)
3. The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application.
M. Makhura
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
7
Appearances:
For the Applicants: Mr M. Mashao of Mashao Attorneys
For the Respondent: No Appearance