The courts take a dim view of hearing chairpersons who make findings that the facts presented do not support. They also disapprove of decisions based on non-existent case law.
Such conduct raises serious concerns about the fairness, credibility and integrity of disciplinary proceedings. It also highlights the importance of sound legal reasoning and the responsible use of technology in legal processes. In particular, the misuse of Artificial Intelligence (AI) can create significant risks when decision-makers rely on unverified information or fabricated legal authorities.
In the matter of M J Molawa and others vs Matjhabeng Local Municipality (Lex Info, 13 July 2026, Labour Court case no. 2026-157576), the chairperson of a disciplinary hearing cited non-existent case law in his outcome finding. The incident demonstrates why hearing chairpersons must verify every legal authority they use. It also highlights the potential consequences of the misuse of AI and other tools that may generate inaccurate legal references.
The consequences of relying on non-existent case law
The court observed that the chairperson had indeed relied on case reports that did not exist. When asked to provide the correct case authorities, he failed to do so, despite agreeing to provide them. This raised questions about the reliability of the legal reasoning behind his finding.
The Labour Court further pointed out that the chairperson had refused to recuse himself. The employer had also unreasonably refused to replace him. Consequently, the court issued an order staying the disciplinary hearing pending the hearing of the review.
This outcome demonstrates that disciplinary proceedings must follow fair and legally sound procedures. A chairperson cannot simply rely on legal authorities without confirming that they exist and support the principles being applied. Where a decision-maker introduces incorrect or fabricated case law, the resulting finding may face serious scrutiny. The misuse of AI can compound this problem when a chairperson accepts generated legal references without checking them against authoritative legal sources.
The importance of verifying legal authorities
The outcome underlines the importance of employers appointing competent chairpersons. Employers must ensure that these individuals understand the relevant legal principles and can apply them appropriately. They must also verify that every legal citation and principle used to reach a hearing decision is correct.
This responsibility extends beyond the chairperson. Employers should establish appropriate procedures to check the quality and accuracy of disciplinary outcomes. They should also ensure that chairpersons have access to reliable legal resources when they need to research relevant authorities.
Where a chairperson uses digital research tools or AI-assisted systems, the employer must insist on independent verification. The misuse of AI should never become an excuse for relying on fabricated judgments, inaccurate legal interpretations or unsupported findings.
A lesson for employers and hearing chairpersons
Ultimately, this case serves as a reminder that disciplinary hearings require procedural fairness, legal accuracy and impartial decision-making. Employers should not treat the appointment of a chairperson as a mere administrative exercise. Instead, they should select individuals with the necessary knowledge, experience and ability to assess evidence objectively.
Chairpersons must also take responsibility for the findings they issue. They should verify 
For employers, the lesson is clear – sound disciplinary processes depend on competent decision-makers and verifiable legal reasoning. They must take practical steps to prevent the misuse of AI and other research tools. Ultimately, a disciplinary outcome must rest on the facts presented, applicable law and a fair assessment of the evidence.
Ivan Israelstam | Chief Executive | Labour Law Management Consulting | mail me |