- The Labour Court in Durban put a hold on disciplinary proceedings against three Matjhabeng Local Municipality employees while a review application is underway.
- The employees claim the disciplinary chairperson used legal authorities that do not exist, possibly created by artificial intelligence, in important rulings.
- The court found there were exceptional reasons to step in before the disciplinary hearing could go ahead.
The Labour Court in Durban has stopped disciplinary proceedings against three Matjhabeng Local Municipality employees after finding early evidence that the chairperson in charge may have relied on fake legal authorities, raising concerns about the fairness of the process.
In a ruling by Judge K Allen-Yaman, the court granted an urgent application by MJ Molawa, IL Springkaan, and GC Smith, putting their disciplinary hearing on hold until a review application challenging decisions made by disciplinary chairperson Dr Dan Raseluma is decided. The Free State-based municipality tried to oppose the application but was unsuccessful.
The disciplinary proceedings stem from misconduct charges instituted against the employees in March 2021, although the judgment does not disclose the nature of the allegations.
Court raises concerns about AI-generated authorities
The dispute focused on two decisions made by the disciplinary chairperson. The employees argued that the municipality had lost its right to discipline them because of long delays in prosecuting alleged misconduct going back to 2021. The chairperson dismissed this argument and later refused to step down from the case.
The employees then went to the Labour Court, saying that several legal cases cited by the chairperson either did not exist or did not support the arguments he said they did. They argued this suggested the rulings may have been created with help from artificial intelligence, without proper checking. This raised doubts about whether the chairperson had properly thought through the issues himself.
Judge Allen-Yaman agreed there was initial evidence supporting these concerns. The judgment points out that two of the cases the chairperson cited from the Labour Appeal Court do not exist. Another case was cited for a legal point it does not actually cover.
Rejecting the municipality's argument that the chairperson probably meant to cite different cases, Judge Allen-Yaman said, "The idea that readers should just guess which case the decision-maker meant to cite, instead of what was actually named, is not acceptable."
The judge added that if the chairperson had "blindly relied on an AI assistant," South African courts have already made it clear that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable.
Integrity of disciplinary process questioned
Judge Allen-Yaman referred to earlier South African decisions that criticised using fake legal cases generated by AI. The judge also mentioned court decisions from England and India that highlighted the risks of using unchecked AI-generated legal research.
The court quoted an earlier South African decision, which warned that courts expect legal professionals "to bring an independent and questioning mind to bear" instead of just repeating unverified chatbot research. The court also referred to an English case that warned AI systems can produce convincing but completely false legal cases. India's Supreme Court recently said that relying on "non-existent, fake and hallucinated material" damages the integrity of judicial decisions.
Although the court said the real source of the incorrect citations would be decided during the review, it found the employees had shown an initial right to relief.
"Whether the citations were generated by an AI assistant or made up by the chairperson himself, the result is the same: there is initial evidence before this court that he failed to properly consider the law around both the waiver and recusal issues," Judge Allen-Yaman said.
The judge said the employees should not be forced to go through a disciplinary hearing led by someone whose judgment has come into serious question.
"Justice would not be served by making the employees go through a disciplinary hearing led by someone whose decision-making is under serious doubt," the judgment said.
Municipality opposed application
Matjhabeng Local Municipality opposed the urgent application, saying the matter was not urgent, that the Labour Court had no authority, and that the employees should have asked the disciplinary chairperson for help instead.
Judge Allen-Yaman rejected those arguments, saying the employees acted quickly once the hearing dates were confirmed. Forcing them to continue with the disciplinary process before the review was decided could cause serious harm. The judge also said it was not reasonable to expect the employees to ask for more rulings from the same chairperson whose impartiality they were questioning.
Disciplinary hearing put on hold
The Labour Court found there were exceptional reasons to step in before the disciplinary process was finished. The court put the disciplinary hearing, which was scheduled for 14 and 15 July 2026, on hold until the review application is decided.
The court did not order anyone to pay costs, noting that the municipality did not act in bad faith and that both sides are still in an employment relationship.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
