LEGAL OPINION
Case:
Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and Others (JR546/2023) [2025] ZALCJHB 572 (3
December 2025)
QUESTION 1: Summary of the Facts of the Case (5 marks)
Answer:
Cashbuild SA Ltd (the applicant) brought a review application before the Labour Court
to challenge an arbitration award issued by a CCMA Commissioner, Mamogale N.O
(the first respondent). The arbitration award found that the dismissal of the third
respondent, Ms Lorraine Tsiri, was substantively unfair.
Ms Tsiri was employed by Cashbuild as a cashier. On 8 July 2022, she authorised a
petty cash payment of R2 847.14 instead of the correct amount of R2 482.00, resulting
in a cash shortage of R365.14. At the time of this incident, Ms Tsiri was already subject
to a final written warning for a previous petty cash shortage. Based on this, Cashbuild
charged her with gross negligence and dismissed her.
Ms Tsiri referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA. She argued that although
she made an error, other employees who committed similar petty cash shortages were
not dismissed. According to her evidence, those employees were allowed to repay the
shortages informally without formal disciplinary action. The Commissioner accepted this
evidence and found that Cashbuild had applied discipline inconsistently. As a result, the
Commissioner ruled that the dismissal was substantively unfair and ordered Ms Tsiri’s
reinstatement.
Cashbuild then approached the Labour Court, seeking to have the arbitration award
reviewed and set aside on the basis that the Commissioner acted unreasonably and
committed reviewable irregularities (Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and Others
[2025] ZALCJHB 572).
Case:
Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and Others (JR546/2023) [2025] ZALCJHB 572 (3
December 2025)
QUESTION 1: Summary of the Facts of the Case (5 marks)
Answer:
Cashbuild SA Ltd (the applicant) brought a review application before the Labour Court
to challenge an arbitration award issued by a CCMA Commissioner, Mamogale N.O
(the first respondent). The arbitration award found that the dismissal of the third
respondent, Ms Lorraine Tsiri, was substantively unfair.
Ms Tsiri was employed by Cashbuild as a cashier. On 8 July 2022, she authorised a
petty cash payment of R2 847.14 instead of the correct amount of R2 482.00, resulting
in a cash shortage of R365.14. At the time of this incident, Ms Tsiri was already subject
to a final written warning for a previous petty cash shortage. Based on this, Cashbuild
charged her with gross negligence and dismissed her.
Ms Tsiri referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA. She argued that although
she made an error, other employees who committed similar petty cash shortages were
not dismissed. According to her evidence, those employees were allowed to repay the
shortages informally without formal disciplinary action. The Commissioner accepted this
evidence and found that Cashbuild had applied discipline inconsistently. As a result, the
Commissioner ruled that the dismissal was substantively unfair and ordered Ms Tsiri’s
reinstatement.
Cashbuild then approached the Labour Court, seeking to have the arbitration award
reviewed and set aside on the basis that the Commissioner acted unreasonably and
committed reviewable irregularities (Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and Others
[2025] ZALCJHB 572).
