Labour Court upholds KFC Rocklands manager’s dismissal

The Labour Court has upheld the dismissal of the former general manager of KFC Rocklands in Bloemfontein, overturning an arbitration award that had favoured him. The dispute involving KFC franchise operator Rohloff Group puts workplace trust and the handling of misconduct allegations in focus for South Africa’s franchising community.

Court overturns arbitration outcome

According to a Joburg ETC report published on 12 November 2026, Sebata Alfred Ntahane challenged his dismissal through the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA). The resulting arbitration award initially favoured the former restaurant manager.

Rohloff Group then took the matter to the Labour Court, seeking to overturn that award. Acting Judge ME Manala found in the company’s favour, concluding that the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively fair.

The court substituted the CCMA’s earlier decision with an order confirming the fairness of the dismissal. It declined to award costs to either party.

That sequence matters when reading the outcome: the Labour Court was considering a dispute that had already produced an arbitration award, rather than simply endorsing the employer’s original decision without an intervening process. The employer and employee had received different outcomes at the two stages.

Evidence and trust at the centre

The report says the court found credible evidence supporting allegations of favouritism and misconduct. The resulting breakdown in trust was central to its decision to uphold the dismissal.

Acting Judge Manala also noted substantial acrimony between Ntahane and Bonolo-Khosi, finding that future collaboration was impossible. The court emphasised that the trust relationship required between employer and employee had been irreparably damaged.

The reported reasoning therefore went beyond a general disagreement over management style. It connected the evidence of misconduct with the practical question of whether the working relationship could continue.

For franchise owners reading the case, that distinction is important. A claim that trust has broken down is not the same thing as a court finding, after considering evidence, that the relationship has been irreparably damaged. Here, the reported outcome rested on the court’s assessment of the particular dispute.

The ruling should consequently be read as a decision about the evidence and relationships in this case, not as an automatic answer to every workplace allegation of favouritism.

A franchise operator’s employment dispute

The employer in the proceedings was Rohloff Group, which operates KFC franchises. The restaurant at the centre of the dispute was the Rocklands outlet in Bloemfontein, and Ntahane held its general manager position.

That makes the case directly relevant to the South African franchising community, while keeping its scope clear. It concerns an employment dispute involving a franchise operator and one of its managers; it is not a reported change to franchise regulation or a finding about the KFC network as a whole.

For prospective and existing franchise owners, the case also offers a concrete subject to discuss when assessing employment support arrangements. Questions worth asking include who advises on disciplinary matters, how allegations are documented and what assistance is available when a dispute reaches arbitration or court.

Those are practical due-diligence questions, rather than additional findings from the judgment. The reported case establishes the outcome for Rohloff Group and Ntahane, not the employment procedures or support available at other franchise businesses.

What owners can take from the ruling

Two parts of the outcome deserve attention together: the court confirmed both procedural and substantive fairness, and it linked the dismissal to credible evidence and an irreparable breakdown in trust. Focusing only on the word “favouritism” would miss those elements of the reported reasoning.

An owner facing a comparable complaint should avoid treating this result as permission to skip an individual assessment. The useful next step is to review the evidence, the process followed and the circumstances of the working relationship with an appropriate labour-law adviser.

Practical takeaway: Use the Rocklands case as a prompt to check disciplinary procedures and access to employment advice, not as a shortcut to dismissing a manager accused of favouritism.