This article interrogates the challenges related to employees whose services have been procured through temporary employment services. More recently there have been some serious efforts by the legislature to regulate labour broking in an attempt to protect employees whose services are procured through temporary employment services. The purpose of this article is to critically analyse the judgment of the Labour Court in Nape v INTCS Corporate Solutions (Pty) Ltd (2010) 31 ILJ 2120 (LC) and to consider its implications for the regulation of labour under section 198 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (the “LRA”). The main question in this case related to the dismissal of an employee at the instance of the client. It is against this background that this contribution argues for the need to recognise the right of recourse of the labour broker against the client. The first part of the article analyses the judgment in Nape case which provides an overview for interpretation of section 198 of the LRA. The second part analyses the principles developed in the Nape case and argues for the need to recognise the right of recourse of the labour broker against its client. The third part of the article briefly examines and analyses the effect of the legislative amendment introduced by the Labour Relations Amendment Act 6 of 2014 which seeks to regulate the protection of the rights of low-earning employees by ensuring that they have been employed in terms of genuine labour broking contracts, thus maintaining a fair balance between commercial sustainability of business whilst still recognizing protection of the rights and interests of employees.