MRL3702
Assignment 1
Semester 1
2026
, MRL3702 – Assessment 1 (Semester 1, 2026)
LEGAL OPINION
Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and Others
(JR546/2023) [2025] ZALCJHB 572 (3 December 2025)
1. Summary of the Facts
Ms Lorraine Tsiri was employed by Cashbuild SA Ltd as a system supervisor. On 8 July 2022,
she authorised an incorrect petty cash payment of R2,847.14 instead of the correct amount of
R2,482.00, resulting in an overpayment of R365.14. She was dismissed on 8 August 2022 for
gross negligence. Critically, at the time of dismissal she was serving a final written warning
for a prior similar offence.
During the disciplinary enquiry, Tsiri raised a defence of inconsistent application of discipline.
She alleged that two colleagues Sarah Mogale and Elizabeth Ramango had previously incurred
cash shortages and were permitted to repay the amounts informally without facing formal
disciplinary proceedings. The employer did not adequately refute this evidence. The CCMA
arbitrator (first respondent) found the dismissal substantively unfair on the basis of proven
inconsistency in the application of discipline and ordered Tsiri's reinstatement. Cashbuild
subsequently brought a review application before the Labour Court, contending that the
arbitrator's award was unreasonable.
2. Issue(s) in Dispute
The central issue before the Labour Court was whether the arbitrator's finding of substantive
unfairness premised on inconsistent application of discipline was a decision that a reasonable
decision-maker could reach. A secondary issue was whether the existence of a final written
warning at the time of the employee's dismissal cured any substantive unfairness arising from
the alleged inconsistency in the employer's disciplinary conduct.
3. The Court's Decision
The Labour Court dismissed Cashbuild's review application and upheld the arbitrator's award.
The court found that the arbitrator's conclusion was reasonable and fell within the range of
decisions available to a reasonable decision-maker on the evidence. Tsiri's oral evidence
regarding the informal repayment arrangements extended to her comparators was preferred,
and Cashbuild failed to provide adequate justification for the differential treatment. The court
Assignment 1
Semester 1
2026
, MRL3702 – Assessment 1 (Semester 1, 2026)
LEGAL OPINION
Cashbuild SA Ltd v Mamogale N.O and Others
(JR546/2023) [2025] ZALCJHB 572 (3 December 2025)
1. Summary of the Facts
Ms Lorraine Tsiri was employed by Cashbuild SA Ltd as a system supervisor. On 8 July 2022,
she authorised an incorrect petty cash payment of R2,847.14 instead of the correct amount of
R2,482.00, resulting in an overpayment of R365.14. She was dismissed on 8 August 2022 for
gross negligence. Critically, at the time of dismissal she was serving a final written warning
for a prior similar offence.
During the disciplinary enquiry, Tsiri raised a defence of inconsistent application of discipline.
She alleged that two colleagues Sarah Mogale and Elizabeth Ramango had previously incurred
cash shortages and were permitted to repay the amounts informally without facing formal
disciplinary proceedings. The employer did not adequately refute this evidence. The CCMA
arbitrator (first respondent) found the dismissal substantively unfair on the basis of proven
inconsistency in the application of discipline and ordered Tsiri's reinstatement. Cashbuild
subsequently brought a review application before the Labour Court, contending that the
arbitrator's award was unreasonable.
2. Issue(s) in Dispute
The central issue before the Labour Court was whether the arbitrator's finding of substantive
unfairness premised on inconsistent application of discipline was a decision that a reasonable
decision-maker could reach. A secondary issue was whether the existence of a final written
warning at the time of the employee's dismissal cured any substantive unfairness arising from
the alleged inconsistency in the employer's disciplinary conduct.
3. The Court's Decision
The Labour Court dismissed Cashbuild's review application and upheld the arbitrator's award.
The court found that the arbitrator's conclusion was reasonable and fell within the range of
decisions available to a reasonable decision-maker on the evidence. Tsiri's oral evidence
regarding the informal repayment arrangements extended to her comparators was preferred,
and Cashbuild failed to provide adequate justification for the differential treatment. The court
