UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA (UNISA)
College of Law
⋄
Labour Law
Case Analysis: Mmakau v CCMA and Others
Assignment 01 — Semester 2, 2026
⋄
Module Code: MRL3702
Module Name: Labour Law
Assignment No.: Assignment 01
Semester: Semester 2, 2026
Total Marks: 10
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Labour Law (MRL3702)
at the University of South Africa.
, UNISA | MRL3702 Mmakau v CCMA and Others: Case Analysis
Case Analysis: Mmakau v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and
Others
The case under discussion is Mmakau v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitra-
tion and Others1 , a decision of the Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg, delivered by
Van der Merwe AJ on 23 January 2026. The matter concerns an unopposed review applica-
tion arising from an unfair discrimination dispute referred under the Employment Equity Act
55 of 1998 (the EEA).2
1.1 Summary of Facts
The applicant, Justice Mmakau, was employed by the third respondent, Mantis Security (Pty)
Ltd, as a security guard.3 He lives with a stutter, which the court records as his disability for
purposes of the claim.4 In keeping with standard practice in the private security industry, the
employer placed him at a client’s premises in a position that required regular interaction with
members of the public. The employer subsequently moved him to a different location within
the same premises. The applicant’s case was that this transfer was not an ordinary opera-
tional decision, but was motivated by his stutter and the employer’s discomfort with having
him interact with the public.5 The employer, for its part, conceded at arbitration that if the
move was shown to have been motivated by the applicant’s disability, unfair discrimination
would be established. The dispute therefore turned on a single factual question: whether the
reason for the transfer was disability or something unrelated to it.6 The commissioner, Frank
Naidoo, found that the applicant had not discharged the evidential burden of proving that the
move was disability-related, and dismissed the referral.7
1.2 Issues in Dispute
Two connected issues arose. The first, before the commissioner at arbitration, was factual:
whether the applicant’s transfer to a different location was motivated by his disability or by
1
Mmakau v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2733/2021) [2026] ZALCJHB
14 (23 January 2026).
2
Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998, s 6.
3
Mmakau (n 1) para 2.
4
Mmakau (n 1) para 1.
5
Mmakau (n 1) para 2.
6
Mmakau (n 1) para 3.
7
Mmakau (n 1) para 4.
Page 1 of 6
College of Law
⋄
Labour Law
Case Analysis: Mmakau v CCMA and Others
Assignment 01 — Semester 2, 2026
⋄
Module Code: MRL3702
Module Name: Labour Law
Assignment No.: Assignment 01
Semester: Semester 2, 2026
Total Marks: 10
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Labour Law (MRL3702)
at the University of South Africa.
, UNISA | MRL3702 Mmakau v CCMA and Others: Case Analysis
Case Analysis: Mmakau v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and
Others
The case under discussion is Mmakau v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitra-
tion and Others1 , a decision of the Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg, delivered by
Van der Merwe AJ on 23 January 2026. The matter concerns an unopposed review applica-
tion arising from an unfair discrimination dispute referred under the Employment Equity Act
55 of 1998 (the EEA).2
1.1 Summary of Facts
The applicant, Justice Mmakau, was employed by the third respondent, Mantis Security (Pty)
Ltd, as a security guard.3 He lives with a stutter, which the court records as his disability for
purposes of the claim.4 In keeping with standard practice in the private security industry, the
employer placed him at a client’s premises in a position that required regular interaction with
members of the public. The employer subsequently moved him to a different location within
the same premises. The applicant’s case was that this transfer was not an ordinary opera-
tional decision, but was motivated by his stutter and the employer’s discomfort with having
him interact with the public.5 The employer, for its part, conceded at arbitration that if the
move was shown to have been motivated by the applicant’s disability, unfair discrimination
would be established. The dispute therefore turned on a single factual question: whether the
reason for the transfer was disability or something unrelated to it.6 The commissioner, Frank
Naidoo, found that the applicant had not discharged the evidential burden of proving that the
move was disability-related, and dismissed the referral.7
1.2 Issues in Dispute
Two connected issues arose. The first, before the commissioner at arbitration, was factual:
whether the applicant’s transfer to a different location was motivated by his disability or by
1
Mmakau v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2733/2021) [2026] ZALCJHB
14 (23 January 2026).
2
Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998, s 6.
3
Mmakau (n 1) para 2.
4
Mmakau (n 1) para 1.
5
Mmakau (n 1) para 2.
6
Mmakau (n 1) para 3.
7
Mmakau (n 1) para 4.
Page 1 of 6
