- The Labour Court ruled that CPUT's dismissal of a long-serving employee was substantively unfair.
- The university failed to properly consider medical boarding before terminating her employment.
- Employee awarded nearly R500 000 in additional compensation.
The Labour Court has found that the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT) unfairly dismissed a long-serving employee for ill health after failing to properly investigate medical boarding and other alternatives before terminating her employment.
Judge M Makhura delivered the judgment on 8 July 2026 in a review application brought by Solidarity and employee Ferose Samaai against CPUT, the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) and the commissioner who issued the arbitration award.
The court reviewed and set aside the portion of the CCMA award that found Samaai's dismissal to be substantively fair and substituted it with a finding that the dismissal was substantively unfair.
Employee's long history of ill health
Samaai joined CPUT in May 1996 and was employed as an Administrator in Human Capital when she was dismissed in July 2023 following an incapacity process. She was diagnosed with anxiety and depression in 2018.
In 2021, she underwent the amputation of a finger and later had wrist surgery in 2023. During this period, she received occupational therapy, psychiatric treatment and various workplace interventions intended to help her remain in employment.
CPUT argued that it had accommodated Samaai over several years and that no suitable alternative position existed. The university maintained that dismissal became necessary because she could no longer perform the essential functions of her position.
CCMA ruling challenged
Samaai referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the CCMA. Following a hearing, the commissioner found CPUT acted unfairly by proceeding with the incapacity enquiry while Samaai was on approved sick leave, making the dismissal procedurally unfair.
However, the commissioner concluded that the dismissal was substantively fair because the university had reasonably accommodated her and no viable alternative employment was available. Solidarity and Samaai approached the Labour Court to challenge that conclusion.
Medical boarding became the central issue
Judge Makhura found that the commissioner failed to properly apply the legal principles governing dismissals for incapacity arising from ill health.
The judge said employers must investigate the extent of an employee's incapacity, consider reasonable accommodation, and explore alternatives before dismissing an employee. A key issue was Samaai's attempt to pursue medical boarding shortly before the incapacity enquiry.
She asked CPUT to complete the documentation required for her disability claim, explaining that the process was separate from the university's incapacity proceedings. Management refused because the matter had already been referred to Employee Relations.
Judge Makhura said, "Once the employee indicated her intention to pursue medical boarding, the respondent was required to consider and investigate that option as part of its obligation to explore alternatives short of dismissal."
The court rejected CPUT's argument that Samaai had previously declined medical boarding and therefore lost the opportunity to pursue it. "The respondent failed to discharge its obligation to investigate and consider reasonable alternatives to dismissal," Judge Makhura said.
Accommodation efforts found lacking
The court also rejected CPUT's reliance on employee transfers that took place between 2015 and 2018. Judge Makhura found that those transfers occurred before the incapacity process and were linked to performance concerns rather than attempts to accommodate a medically established incapacity.
The judgment found there was little evidence that CPUT implemented meaningful accommodation measures after Samaai returned to her substantive position in January 2019.
The court also questioned the true reason for the dismissal. Evidence presented by university managers focused heavily on allegations that Samaai was lazy, unreliable and performed poorly, rather than establishing that she was medically incapable of performing her duties.
Judge Makhura said there was "a significant disconnect between the stated reason for the dismissal and the evidence advanced in support of it."
The judgment further found uncertainty about which medical condition actually formed the basis of the incapacity enquiry, with witnesses referring to anxiety, depression, a finger amputation, wrist surgery and several other medical conditions without clearly identifying which one rendered Samaai incapable of performing her work.
Court awards compensation
Although the court agreed that holding the incapacity enquiry while Samaai was on approved sick leave rendered the dismissal procedurally unfair, it found that procedural unfairness alone did not automatically make the dismissal substantively unfair.
Instead, the decisive issue was CPUT's failure to properly investigate alternatives to dismissal, particularly medical boarding. The Labour Court substituted the CCMA award with a finding that Samaai's dismissal was substantively unfair.
Judge Makhura ordered CPUT to pay Samaai R497 948, equivalent to 11 months' remuneration, in addition to the one month's salary previously awarded for procedural unfairness, bringing her total compensation to 12 months' remuneration.
No order as to costs was made.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
