UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA
College of Law
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
MRL3702: Labour Law
Assignment 1 | Semester 2, 2026
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
MRL3702
Module Code:
Labour Law
Module Name:
Case Analysis: Mmakau v CCMA and Others
Essay Topic:
Assignment 01
Assignment Number:
August 2026
Due Date:
10
Total Marks:
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Labour Law, UNISA 2026
, UNISA | MRL3702 Mmakau v CCMA & Others – Case Analysis
Case Analysis: Mmakau v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Oth-
ers
The case under discussion is Mmakau v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and
Others,1 an unopposed review application decided by the Labour Court, Johannesburg, on 23 Jan-
uary 2026.
1. Summary of Facts
Justice Mmakau, a security guard employed by Mantis Security (Pty) Ltd, lived with a disability in that
he stuttered.2 He was stationed at a client’s premises in a post that required interaction with mem-
bers of the public. His employer subsequently moved him to another location, and he alleged that
the transfer was motivated by his disability.3 The employer conceded before the arbitrator that, if the
transfer was in fact motivated by the disability, unfair discrimination under the Employment Equity Act
would be established, so the dispute turned squarely on causation.4 The commissioner found that the
employee had not proved this causal link on the evidence and dismissed the referral. The employee
then approached the Labour Court to review that award.5
2. Issues in Dispute
Two issues arose. First, the substantive labour-law issue was whether the employee’s transfer away
from the public-facing post was in truth motivated by his disability and therefore amounted to unfair
discrimination in terms of section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998.6 Second, the proce-
dural issue on review was whether the commissioner had committed a reviewable irregularity in eval-
uating the evidence on this causal question, such that the award fell outside the range of decisions a
reasonable decision-maker could reach, and, flowing from that, what compensation would be just and
equitable if discrimination were found.7
1
Mmakau v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2733/2021) [2026] ZALCJHB 14 (23
January 2026).
2
Mmakau (n 1) para 1.
3
Mmakau (n 1) para 2.
4
Mmakau (n 1) para 3.
5
Mmakau (n 1) para 4.
6
Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998, s 6(1).
7
Mmakau (n 1) paras 4–6.
Page 2 of 4
College of Law
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
MRL3702: Labour Law
Assignment 1 | Semester 2, 2026
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
MRL3702
Module Code:
Labour Law
Module Name:
Case Analysis: Mmakau v CCMA and Others
Essay Topic:
Assignment 01
Assignment Number:
August 2026
Due Date:
10
Total Marks:
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Labour Law, UNISA 2026
, UNISA | MRL3702 Mmakau v CCMA & Others – Case Analysis
Case Analysis: Mmakau v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Oth-
ers
The case under discussion is Mmakau v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and
Others,1 an unopposed review application decided by the Labour Court, Johannesburg, on 23 Jan-
uary 2026.
1. Summary of Facts
Justice Mmakau, a security guard employed by Mantis Security (Pty) Ltd, lived with a disability in that
he stuttered.2 He was stationed at a client’s premises in a post that required interaction with mem-
bers of the public. His employer subsequently moved him to another location, and he alleged that
the transfer was motivated by his disability.3 The employer conceded before the arbitrator that, if the
transfer was in fact motivated by the disability, unfair discrimination under the Employment Equity Act
would be established, so the dispute turned squarely on causation.4 The commissioner found that the
employee had not proved this causal link on the evidence and dismissed the referral. The employee
then approached the Labour Court to review that award.5
2. Issues in Dispute
Two issues arose. First, the substantive labour-law issue was whether the employee’s transfer away
from the public-facing post was in truth motivated by his disability and therefore amounted to unfair
discrimination in terms of section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998.6 Second, the proce-
dural issue on review was whether the commissioner had committed a reviewable irregularity in eval-
uating the evidence on this causal question, such that the award fell outside the range of decisions a
reasonable decision-maker could reach, and, flowing from that, what compensation would be just and
equitable if discrimination were found.7
1
Mmakau v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2733/2021) [2026] ZALCJHB 14 (23
January 2026).
2
Mmakau (n 1) para 1.
3
Mmakau (n 1) para 2.
4
Mmakau (n 1) para 3.
5
Mmakau (n 1) para 4.
6
Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998, s 6(1).
7
Mmakau (n 1) paras 4–6.
Page 2 of 4
