, MRL3702 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2026 - DUE 14 August 2026; 100% Correct
solutions and explanations.
Mmakau v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and
Arbitration and Others (JR2733/2021) [2026] ZALCJHB 14
(23 January 2026)
Introduction
South African labour law seeks to protect employees from unfair treatment in the
workplace while promoting equality, dignity, and fair labour practices. The
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, together with the Employment
Equity Act 55 of 1998 (EEA), prohibits employers from unfairly discriminating
against employees on prohibited grounds such as race, gender, age, religion, and
disability. These legal protections ensure that all employees are judged on their
ability to perform their work rather than on stereotypes or personal characteristics.
The case of Mmakau v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and
Arbitration and Others (JR2733/2021) [2026] ZALCJHB 14 is an important
Labour Court decision because it demonstrates how South African cour ts protect
employees with disabilities from unfair discrimination. The judgment also
highlights the role of the Labour Court in reviewing decisions made by the
Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) where
commissioners fail to properly assess the evidence before them. This assignment
discusses the facts of the case, the issues that were in dispute, the decision of the
Court, and the legal principles applied in resolving the dispute.
1. Summary of Facts (2 Marks)
Justice Mmakau was employed by Mantis Security (Pty) Ltd as a security officer.
He has a speech impairment because he stutters. Despite this disability, he had
been carrying out his duties in a position that required him to communicate with
members of the public. His disability had not prevented him from performing his
responsibilities or carrying out his work effectively.
During his employment, the employer transferred him from his public-facing
position to another post. Mr Mmakau believed that this transfer was not based on
operational requirements or poor work performance but was motivated by his
Semester 2 2026 - DUE 14 August 2026; 100% Correct
solutions and explanations.
Mmakau v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and
Arbitration and Others (JR2733/2021) [2026] ZALCJHB 14
(23 January 2026)
Introduction
South African labour law seeks to protect employees from unfair treatment in the
workplace while promoting equality, dignity, and fair labour practices. The
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, together with the Employment
Equity Act 55 of 1998 (EEA), prohibits employers from unfairly discriminating
against employees on prohibited grounds such as race, gender, age, religion, and
disability. These legal protections ensure that all employees are judged on their
ability to perform their work rather than on stereotypes or personal characteristics.
The case of Mmakau v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and
Arbitration and Others (JR2733/2021) [2026] ZALCJHB 14 is an important
Labour Court decision because it demonstrates how South African cour ts protect
employees with disabilities from unfair discrimination. The judgment also
highlights the role of the Labour Court in reviewing decisions made by the
Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) where
commissioners fail to properly assess the evidence before them. This assignment
discusses the facts of the case, the issues that were in dispute, the decision of the
Court, and the legal principles applied in resolving the dispute.
1. Summary of Facts (2 Marks)
Justice Mmakau was employed by Mantis Security (Pty) Ltd as a security officer.
He has a speech impairment because he stutters. Despite this disability, he had
been carrying out his duties in a position that required him to communicate with
members of the public. His disability had not prevented him from performing his
responsibilities or carrying out his work effectively.
During his employment, the employer transferred him from his public-facing
position to another post. Mr Mmakau believed that this transfer was not based on
operational requirements or poor work performance but was motivated by his
