CCMA victory for dismissed cleaners turns hollow.

The hiring and broken promises

In a case that has gripped South African media and labour rights circles, 13 former cleaners who provided services at the Carlton Centre secured a significant victory against what they describe as exploitative employment practices tied to a company allegedly connected to celebrity Somizi Mhlongo. The saga began in June 2024 when the workers were hired by Search Light (Pty) Ltd for cleaning duties. They were initially promised secure three-year contracts, with documents reportedly showing letters confirming 36-month employment terms, raising expectations of stable work in an industry notorious for precarious conditions.

However, reality quickly diverged. The employees received short-term agreements instead, and many continued labouring for months without formal contracts. The abrupt end came in April 2025, when dismissals were communicated coldly via WhatsApp messages, with no prior warning, hearing, or adherence to proper procedures. Workers claimed this violated basic South African labour protections under the Labour Relations Act, which safeguards against unfair dismissal and mandates fair processes even for fixed-term contracts that become indefinite through ongoing employment.

The CCMA ruling: A landmark victory for workers.

The matter landed at the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation, and Arbitration (CCMA), South Africa's key body for resolving workplace disputes. At hearings, Somizi’s business associate, Ndou Maleho (also known as Lindo Maleho), defended the company by arguing that the contracts had simply expired naturally and that the workers refused to sign new ones. The CCMA commissioner rejected this stance outright.

The ruling determined that the cleaners remained legally employed under the law, likely due to the nature of their continued service creating an expectation of ongoing employment and that the dismissals were both procedurally flawed (lacking hearings or notices) and substantively unfair (no valid reason justified the terminations). The award granted each of the 13 workers R29,590 in compensation for the unfair dismissal, totaling around R384,670. On top of this, unpaid salaries for April, May, and June 2025 amounted to more than R165,000 (precisely R165,402.62 in reported figures), pushing the overall liability beyond R550,000, including potential interest.

Union representative Thabiso Putswe from the Hotelicca union celebrated the outcome as a landmark win for vulnerable workers in the cleaning sector.

He emphasized how such rulings deter casual disregard for workers' rights:

“This sends a strong message to employers who think they can exploit people and disregard fair labour practices,” said Putswe.

Enforcement order: sheriff steps in.

Despite the CCMA's clear directive, compliance faltered. Search Light (Pty) Ltd did not pay the awarded amounts. By June 23, 2025, the CCMA issued an enforcement award under Section 143 of the Labour Relations Act, certifying the original ruling and authorizing the sheriff of the court to seize and publicly auction the company's movable assets to recover the debts, plus accrued interest. Reports from July 2025 detailed this escalation, with media outlets like Sunday World and Scrolla Africa highlighting how the sheriff was dispatched to locate and attach property from the cleaning services firm.

By October 2025, further twists emerged: reports indicated the sheriff struggled to locate the company or its assets, with suggestions that Search Light had effectively “vanished” or become untraceable, prolonging the workers' wait for justice. No public confirmation of successful asset seizures, full payments, or any appeals/resolutions has surfaced in available reporting as of March 6, 2026.

Somizi Mhlongo’s alleged role and firm denials.

The controversy intensified around Somizi Mhlongo’s alleged role. Official documents, including company resolutions and directorship listings obtained by journalists, reportedly name Mhlongo and Lindo Maleho as directors of Search Light (Pty) Ltd. Union sources and affected workers insisted Mhlongo had direct involvement, with claims he attended operational meetings and even introduced himself on-site as a director. One anonymous former employee dismissed denials as “laughable,” asserting personal encounters proved his executive position.

Mhlongo, however, has consistently and forcefully rejected these links. In statements as recent as October 2025, he described the claims as 'completely false and misleading,' insisting the company 'does not belong to me, has never been registered under my name, and I have no association with it whatsoever.' He took to social media platforms like Instagram to counter reports, sarcastically noting he had 'found out I own a company I never had.' Some coverage mentioned company searches showing no direct registration ties, fueling his defense that the association stemmed from misinformation or mistaken identity.

Broader implications for labour rights in South Africa.

This case shines a harsh light on persistent challenges in South Africa’s cleaning and service industries. Employers often rely on short-term, informal, or rolling contracts to sidestep obligations like permanent benefits, notice periods, and severance. When disputes arise, vulnerable low-wage workers, many from marginalized communities face uphill battles accessing justice through bodies like the CCMA. Yet successes like this demonstrate the system's potential to enforce fairness, even against non-compliant entities.

For public figures, the reputational stakes are high. When official records clash with personal denials, scrutiny intensifies, potentially damaging brands built on celebrity and influence. Whether through genuine separation or unresolved discrepancies, the episode underscores broader themes: the gap between labour law protections and real-world enforcement, the power imbalances in precarious employment, and the enduring fight for dignity and fair pay in everyday jobs.