Teneille Govender


Teneille practiced as an attorney before being called to the bar. As such she understands the other side of the coin and is able to provide strategic and practical legal advice.


  • Labour
  • Commercial
  • Administrative Law
  • Constitutional Law
  • General litigation

Although Teneille’s area of specialiaty is labour law, having spent most of her years as an attorney practicing in this area, she has added the other areas of law cited above to her repertoire, having gained extensive experience therein.


LLB, LLM, PGDLL (Labour Law)


  • Off-Beat Holiday Club and Another v Sanbonani Holiday Spa Shareblock Limited and Others 2017 (7) BCLR 916 (CC): The issue before the Constitutional Court (“CC”) was whether a claim located in section 252 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 had prescribed. In the Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”), Justice Maya found that “it is established that for the purposes of the Prescription Act the ‘debt’ has a wide and general meaning”. However, approximately two weeks after the SCA’s judgment, the Constitutional Court in Makate v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd [2016] ZACC considered the proper meaning of the term “debt” as it appears in section 10(1) read with 11(d) of the Prescription Act. In Makate, the CC took the view that the pre-Constitutional wide and general interpretation of the term “debt” constitutes an impermissible intrusion into the constitutional right of access to courts enjoyed by litigants and it is this finding that the appeal in the matter under discussion was premised on.  The CC granted leave to appeal against that part of the judgment and order of the SCA that held that the claim located in section 252 of the Companies Act had prescribed, the appeal against the order of the SCA relating to the dismissal of the section 252 relief was upheld and the Court found that a claim brought under section 252 of the Companies Act does not constitute a debt in terms of the Prescription Act. Teneille, acting for the appellant, was led in this matter by Adv H Epstein SC and Adv K Hopkins.
  • South African Poultry Association v Minister of Agriculture & Others [2016] ZAGPPHC 862: This matter involved the urgent review of the Government’s promulgated but not yet operative regulations over permissible brining levels. At issue were aspects of procedural fairness in the regulation-making process and the degree of appropriate public participation required by section 4 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act of 2000; also the proper approach that courts should adopt when treating Government experts which the required degree of deference. Teneille led by Adv H Epstein SC and Adv K Hopkins, acted for respondents including the red meat industry and small chicken producers, and successfully argued, with government, that the promulgating of regulations was a policentric decision and that there was effective consultation.
  • Free State Gambling and Liquor Authority v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others; In re: Free State Liquor and Gambling Authority v Motake N.O and Others  (2015) 36 ILJ 2867 (LC): Teneille, led by Adv  F Boda SC, successfully brought the first application concerning absolution from payment of security on PFMA considerations in view of the amendments to Labour Relations Act. The issue of costs is subject of an appeal pending at the Labour Appeal Court.


  • Mbatha v Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (JR372/13) [2015] ZALCJHB 332 (30 September 2015)
  • Mashiloane v Lopez and Others (25790/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 66 (26 January 2016)