A news letter I received from Global Business studies, thought might be of some interest. if i am not mistaken we had a similiar question posted a few months back.

Retirement Age: Bedderson v Sparrow Schools Education Trust (2010)After working as a teacher for 38 years, the employee took early retirement at the age of 57. Three years
later she taught at another school from which she retired just before the age of 65. Three months before
her 65th birthday, the employee was employed at one of the employer’s schools. After five years’ further service and rising to the position of head of department, the employee was informed that a mandatory
retirement age of 65 had been set for all the employer’s staff, but that serving staff older than that
would be permitted to work on “temporary” contracts until they reached 70. Since by that time the
employee was older than 70, she was informed that her contract would not be renewed. She claimed that
she had been dismissed and that her dismissal was automatically unfair because it was based solely
on age. She also claimed she was the victim of unfair discrimination. In Bedderson v Sparrow Schools Education Trust (2010) 4 BLLR 363 (LC), the Court concluded the employee had clearly been dismissed because of her age. The LRA may provide that a dismissal based on age is not unfair if the employee
had reached the agreed or normal retirement age. But when the employee was employed just before she turned 65, she was entitled to be treated as a permanent employee. The situation had not changed when she reached 70. The mere fact that an earlier retirement age had been set later did not change anything, and did not result in the automatic termination of the employee’s contract. The Court further noted that while the Act sets a higher ceiling for automatically unfair dismissals, an award of maximum ompensation
is not mandatory. The employee had not been humiliated, her main complaint was that she could have made a contribution in the next school year. The employer’s evidence was that is was a non-profit organization catering for needy children and that a significant award of compensation would hinder its
ability to cater for its pupils had not been challenged, and it was unnecessary to “punish” the employer to ensure that no further contravention took place. The employee was granted compensation of R42000, but the Court declined to make an order of costs against the employer.