, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE TO ANSWER YOUR ASSIGNMENT
1. Study the case of Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and Others (JR546/2023) [2025]
ZALCJHB 572 (3 December 2025) and write a two-page (maximum) legal opinion about the
case.
Answer 1
Legal Opinion on Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O. and Others (JR546/2023)
Introduction
The case Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O. and Others (JR546/2023) involves the review of a
decision by the first respondent regarding the dismissal of Ms. Lorraine Tsiri by Cashbuild. The case
centers on the fairness of the dismissal, specifically in relation to the principle of consistency in the
application of discipline. This opinion will summarize the facts of the case, identify the issues in
dispute, present the court’s decision, and provide an analysis of the case in the context of South
African labour law.
Facts of the Case
On 8 August 2022, Ms. Tsiri, a supervisor at Cashbuild, was found to have authorized a payment of
R2,847.14 out of petty cash instead of the correct amount of R2,482.00. The error, considered gross
negligence, led to her dismissal by Cashbuild, which cited a previous final written warning for a
similar offense as justification for the dismissal. Ms. Tsiri contested the fairness of her dismissal,
alleging inconsistency in how discipline was applied by Cashbuild. She pointed out that other
employees who had committed similar infractions had been allowed to reimburse the company rather
than face dismissal. Cashbuild denied this claim, asserting that its disciplinary policies were
consistently applied1.
The first respondent, after conducting an arbitration hearing, found in favor of Ms. Tsiri, concluding
that the dismissal was substantively unfair due to the inconsistent application of discipline. The
arbitrator’s decision was based on the fact that Cashbuild had failed to justify the differential
treatment of Ms. Tsiri compared to other employees1.
Issue(s) in Dispute
The primary issue in this case was whether Cashbuild’s dismissal of Ms. Tsiri was substantively
unfair, due to the inconsistent application of discipline. Specifically, the court had to determine:
Whether the employer applied consistent disciplinary measures to employees who committed
similar infractions.
If inconsistency in discipline was found, whether there was an objectively justifiable reason for
this differentiation.
The applicant, Cashbuild, argued that the dismissal was fair due to the seriousness of the
misconduct and the existence of a prior final written warning. Cashbuild further contended that
the first respondent erred in not properly considering the final warning and in failing to
evaluate whether the inconsistency was arbitrary or unjustifiable1.
1: (“Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and Others (JR546/2023)
1. Study the case of Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and Others (JR546/2023) [2025]
ZALCJHB 572 (3 December 2025) and write a two-page (maximum) legal opinion about the
case.
Answer 1
Legal Opinion on Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O. and Others (JR546/2023)
Introduction
The case Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O. and Others (JR546/2023) involves the review of a
decision by the first respondent regarding the dismissal of Ms. Lorraine Tsiri by Cashbuild. The case
centers on the fairness of the dismissal, specifically in relation to the principle of consistency in the
application of discipline. This opinion will summarize the facts of the case, identify the issues in
dispute, present the court’s decision, and provide an analysis of the case in the context of South
African labour law.
Facts of the Case
On 8 August 2022, Ms. Tsiri, a supervisor at Cashbuild, was found to have authorized a payment of
R2,847.14 out of petty cash instead of the correct amount of R2,482.00. The error, considered gross
negligence, led to her dismissal by Cashbuild, which cited a previous final written warning for a
similar offense as justification for the dismissal. Ms. Tsiri contested the fairness of her dismissal,
alleging inconsistency in how discipline was applied by Cashbuild. She pointed out that other
employees who had committed similar infractions had been allowed to reimburse the company rather
than face dismissal. Cashbuild denied this claim, asserting that its disciplinary policies were
consistently applied1.
The first respondent, after conducting an arbitration hearing, found in favor of Ms. Tsiri, concluding
that the dismissal was substantively unfair due to the inconsistent application of discipline. The
arbitrator’s decision was based on the fact that Cashbuild had failed to justify the differential
treatment of Ms. Tsiri compared to other employees1.
Issue(s) in Dispute
The primary issue in this case was whether Cashbuild’s dismissal of Ms. Tsiri was substantively
unfair, due to the inconsistent application of discipline. Specifically, the court had to determine:
Whether the employer applied consistent disciplinary measures to employees who committed
similar infractions.
If inconsistency in discipline was found, whether there was an objectively justifiable reason for
this differentiation.
The applicant, Cashbuild, argued that the dismissal was fair due to the seriousness of the
misconduct and the existence of a prior final written warning. Cashbuild further contended that
the first respondent erred in not properly considering the final warning and in failing to
evaluate whether the inconsistency was arbitrary or unjustifiable1.
1: (“Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and Others (JR546/2023)
