- The High Court found that salary deductions totalling R105,000 breached the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.
- The court ruled that the Mpumalanga Department of Health acted unlawfully by deducting money without consent or legal authority.
- The department was ordered to repay the outstanding balance, stop further unlawful deductions and pay costs.
A senior doctor employed by the Mpumalanga Department of Health has won a High Court challenge after the department deducted R105,000 from his salary without his consent.
Acting Judge President LD Vukeya of the High Court in Mbombela found that the deductions made against Dr Bruce Malumane’s remuneration were unlawful and in contravention of Section 34 of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (BCEA). The court further ordered the department to repay the outstanding amount still owed to him, together with interest.
Malumane is a Clinical Manager Grade 2 at Mapulaneng Hospital and serves as the National Treasurer of the South African Medical Association Trade Union (SAMATU). He approached the court urgently after discovering that R50,000 had been deducted from his salary as “leave without pay” and a further R55,000 under the description “overtime”.
According to Malumane, the deductions are related to his attendance at various SAMATU and Health Professions Council of South Africa meetings. He argued that these activities formed part of his official responsibilities as a trade union office bearer and registered medical practitioner.
He maintained that the deductions were made without warning, without consultation and without any agreement authorising the department to recover the money from his salary.
Dispute over trade union activities
Malumane told the court that SAMATU had formally requested his release from duty to attend various meetings and activities during February and March 2026. These included trade union meetings, bargaining activities, a national march relating to unemployed doctors and meetings of the Health Professions Council of South Africa.
He argued that the department never lawfully refused those requests before he attended the activities and that the subsequent deductions amounted to an unlawful retrospective sanction.
The department opposed the application. It argued that some of the absences were unauthorised and that Malumane had failed to ensure that leave requests were properly approved and captured on the relevant systems. It further contended that the matter was not urgent and that he should have pursued internal grievance procedures before approaching the court.
The respondents also argued that the dispute belonged before the Labour Court because it related to labour rights and trade union activities.
Court rejects department’s challenge to jurisdiction
Judge Vukeya rejected the respondents’ arguments on urgency and jurisdiction. The court found that more than half of Malumane’s salary had been deducted in a single month, creating immediate financial hardship and uncertainty about whether similar deductions would continue.
Addressing jurisdiction, Judge Vukeya held that the matter involved rights arising from the employment relationship and the contractual obligation to pay an employee’s salary. As a result, the High Court had concurrent jurisdiction with the Labour Court to determine the dispute.
The judge observed that the claim concerned money allegedly deducted from an employee’s remuneration without consent and therefore arose directly from the employment contract.
Judge Vukeya said, “The applicant would not be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course as he was uncertain whether the deductions would continue monthly and if the matter were to be heard in the normal course, the applicant would suffer an even bigger financial loss.”
Employers cannot take the law into their own hands
The central issue before the court was whether the department was legally entitled to deduct the money without Malumane’s written consent or another lawful basis recognised by section 34 of the BCEA.
Judge Vukeya emphasised that the BCEA prohibits employers from making deductions from an employee’s remuneration unless authorised by a written agreement, law, collective agreement, court order or arbitration award. The judge said, “The real issue is whether the threshold as required in terms of section 34 (1) has been met.”
The court found that regardless of whether the department believed Malumane had been absent without approved leave, it could not simply deduct money from his salary without following the legal requirements set out in the BCEA.
Referring to Constitutional Court authority on self-help, Judge Vukeya noted that employers are not entitled to take the law into their own hands.
The judge found, “The respondents acted contrary to section 34 (1) of the BCEA by deducting an amount of R105 000.00 from the applicant’s remuneration without following due process.”
Court orders repayment
During the proceedings, it emerged that part of the deducted amount, R57,216.36 relating to overtime, had already been repaid to Malumane. However, a balance of R48,581.41 remained outstanding.
The respondents maintained that Malumane was not entitled to payment for the days on which they alleged he had been absent from work without approved leave. The court rejected the argument that this created a genuine dispute of fact.
Judge Vukeya held that the real issue was not whether the department approved the leave, but whether it was legally entitled to deduct money from the salary without complying with section 34 of the BCEA.
The court ultimately declared the deductions unlawful, interdicted the respondents from making any further unlawful salary deductions and ordered repayment of the outstanding amount together with interest at 10.5% from the date of deduction until payment.
Costs were awarded against the respondents. In conclusion, Judge Vukeya held, “My finding on this issue is that the respondents’ conduct was contrary to section 34 and therefore unlawful.”
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
