Contact

The limits of protected disclosure and section 188A(11) of the LRA

Back to top

The limits of protected disclosure and section 188A(11) of the LRA

In Letakgomo v Johnson Matthey (Pty) Ltd (J683/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 240 (31 May 2025), Mr Thabo Letakgomo (the applicant), was employed as a plant manager/managing director at Johnson Matthey (Pty) Ltd (the respondent), a company that manufactures platinum group metals catalytic converters.

14 Jul 2025 1 min read Employment Law Alert Article

At a glance

  • The judgment in Letakgomo v Johnson Matthey (Pty) Ltd (J683/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 240 (31 May 2025) provides clarity on the threshold for a disclosure to be protected under the Protected Disclosures Act 26 of 2000 and reaffirms that a standard internal hearing typically does not amount to an occupational detriment.
  • The court declared that the internal process need not be terminated simply because the employee alleged retaliation.
  • Employers retain a right to manage discipline unless there is a genuine, credible disclosure involving employer or employee wrongdoing.

Second alert _Facts 2nd[31] - 1

Second alert _Courts analysis 2nd[15] - 2

Second alert_Courts findings and takeaways 2nd[94] - 3

The information and material published on this website is provided for general purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. We make every effort to ensure that the content is updated regularly and to offer the most current and accurate information. Please consult one of our lawyers on any specific legal problem or matter. We accept no responsibility for any loss or damage, whether direct or consequential, which may arise from reliance on the information contained in these pages. Please refer to our full terms and conditions. Copyright © 2025 Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr. All rights reserved. For permission to reproduce an article or publication, please contact us cliffedekkerhofmeyr@cdhlegal.com.

You might also be interested in

11 Jun 2025

by Imraan Mahomed and Taryn York

Dismissal of a foreign national without a work visa ruled unlawful

Nyakudya, a Zimbabwean national, was employed by the OR Tambo District Municipality (Municipality) on successive fixed-term contracts from 2009 to March 2022. After the expiry of Nyakudya’s last fixed-term contract, the Municipality allowed Nyakudya to continue working without a new fixed-term contract.

Employment Law

1 min read

5 Nov 2024

by John Webber

Exemption granted on mandatory disclosure forms for commercial properties

The Property Practitioners’ Regulatory Authority (PPRA) earlier this year granted the South African Property Owners Association (SAPOA) and its members an exemption from the requirement to include a mandatory disclosure form in commercial property sale and leaseagreements. 

Real Estate Law

1 min read

27 Jun 2025

by Gretchen Barkhuizen-Barbosa and Evangelia Goulas

When honour crosses borders: Exporting a heritage object from South Africa

Exporting culturally significant objects from South Africa – like a Victoria Cross medal – is no small feat. These medals, often highly prized by collectors and institutions, are not only valuable for their rarity, but also for their military and historical significance. They cannot simply be slipped into an envelope for shipment overseas.

Trusts & Estates Law

2 min read

16 Sep 2024

by Nadeem Mahomed

Queer women, vulnerability, and exclusion in the SA workplace

Nadeem Mahomed, Director in the Employment Law practice, and Knowledge Management Department, and Asma Cachalia, Director in the Employment Law practice were featured in The Star where they discussed Queer women, vulnerability, and exclusion in the SA workplace.

Employment Law

1 min read

30 Oct 2024

by Kate Anderson and Keagan Hyslop

50/50 shareholders and oppressive conduct: When some shareholders are more equal than others

A fundamental principle of South African company law is “ majority rules ” – shareholders and directors are bound by the decisions of the majority even where such decisions are not in their interest. However, recognising the potential for unfair abuse of such a principle, the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (Companies Act) devised section 163, which allows a director or shareholder of a company to apply to court for relief from oppressive conduct of the company or a person related to it that unfairly disregards or prejudices the interests of the applicant. Section 163 therefore paints the picture of a majority shareholder abusing its ability to control the company to unfairly bully or oppress minority shareholders. But what happens if the shareholders are equals – can a 50/50 shareholder be oppressed by their equal? This was the question before the High Court in Van der Watt v Schoeman and Others 91 SA 531 (ECGq).

Corporate & Commercial Law

4 min read

21 May 2025

by Simone Dickson, Sadia Rizvi and Pebetsi Letsoalo

Important POPIA amendments to note

Significant amendments have been made to the Regulations issued under the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (POPIA). These changes appear to be aimed at providing data subjects with more options to enforce theirrights. 

Technology & Communications

1 min read

This website uses cookies to enhance the browsing experience. For more information, please see our Cookie Policy.

Accept Decline