, MRL3702 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 1
2026 - DUE 12 March 2026; ;100% trusted ,comprehensive and
complete reliable solution with clear explanation.
Case of Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and Others (JR546/2023)
[2025] ZALCJHB 572 (3 December 2025)
LEGAL OPINION – Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and
Others
Case No: JR546/2023
Court: Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg
Date Delivered: 3 December 2025
Citation: Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and Others [2025]
ZALCJHB 572
1. Summary of the Facts (2 marks)
On 8 July 2022, Ms Lorraine Tsiri (the third respondent) approved a
petty cash payment of R2 847.14, which exceeded the correct amount of
R2 482.00, creating a shortfall of R365.14. Cashbuild SA Ltd (“the
applicant”) considered this a serious breach, particularly because
Ms Tsiri had previously received a final written warning for similar
misconduct. At the disciplinary hearing, the company dismissed her for
gross negligence, citing both the current error and her prior record.
Ms Tsiri contested her dismissal at the CCMA, arguing that the
employer had applied disciplinary measures inconsistently, as other
employees who caused similar shortages were permitted to rectify the
error without formal sanction. The CCMA agreed with her, finding the
2026 - DUE 12 March 2026; ;100% trusted ,comprehensive and
complete reliable solution with clear explanation.
Case of Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and Others (JR546/2023)
[2025] ZALCJHB 572 (3 December 2025)
LEGAL OPINION – Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and
Others
Case No: JR546/2023
Court: Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg
Date Delivered: 3 December 2025
Citation: Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and Others [2025]
ZALCJHB 572
1. Summary of the Facts (2 marks)
On 8 July 2022, Ms Lorraine Tsiri (the third respondent) approved a
petty cash payment of R2 847.14, which exceeded the correct amount of
R2 482.00, creating a shortfall of R365.14. Cashbuild SA Ltd (“the
applicant”) considered this a serious breach, particularly because
Ms Tsiri had previously received a final written warning for similar
misconduct. At the disciplinary hearing, the company dismissed her for
gross negligence, citing both the current error and her prior record.
Ms Tsiri contested her dismissal at the CCMA, arguing that the
employer had applied disciplinary measures inconsistently, as other
employees who caused similar shortages were permitted to rectify the
error without formal sanction. The CCMA agreed with her, finding the
