Skip to main content

Article 17/2023

In the scenario where there is a lawful assembly, demonstration, picket, the presentation of a petition or strike action but unlawful conduct occurs, on what basis can an interdict be obtained to restrain such conduct against bystanders who do not participate in the actual unlawful conduct – simply put, is mere participation in such lawful action, such as strike action, sufficient to establish a link?

_____________________________________

The constitutional court, in Commercial Stevedoring Agriculture and Allied Workers’ Union v Oakvalley Estates (2022) 33 SALLR 49 (CC), adopted the following approach to the aforesaid scenario:

  • the requirements for a final interdict are well established and entails the existence of a clear right, an injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended and the absence of an alternative remedy (Setlogelo v Setlogelo 1914 AD 221)
  • when considering granting an interdict against the aforesaid bystanders, in line with the said requirements, where they have not actually committed the wrong, a reasonable apprehension of injury has to be established – the test is that, if the evidence is insufficient to establish any link between the employee and the actual or threatened injury, the required reasonable apprehension of an injury is not established (Minister of Law and Order v Nordien 1987 (2) SA 894 (A))
  • mere participation in a strike is not sufficient to establish such link – if it was so, innocent bystanders would be caught in the web and it is not good enough to say that they would subsequently escape liability in a negative contempt finding
  • whether or not the required link exists is a factual question and the constitutional court identified the following three scenarios:
    • if the unlawful conduct is ongoing, widespread and manifest, the link would be established if
      the employee does not disassociate himself from same
    • if the strike, assembly, etc, is substantially peaceful and isolated and sporadic unlawful actions occur – the link would be established if association is proved
    • obviously, those actually participating in the unlawful conduct will be covered by an interdict, seeing that the required link has been established
August 17, 2026

We think that everyone understands that an employer is vicariously liable for the wrong committed (an act or omission) by its employee during the course/scope/sphere of employment/engagement in any activity reasonably incidental to it.

But, what is the extent of an employer’s vicarious liability where the employee commits a wrong on his or her own volition?

August 10, 2026

What is the content of traditional consensus to indicate that an agreement exists between an employer and an employee?

If, on the traditional theory of consensus, a party fails to prove an agreement upon which it relies, with reference to Sonap Petroleum SA (Pty) Ltd v Pappadogianis 1992 (3) SA 234 (A), on what basis can a finding be made that quasi-mutual assent exists, founded on the approach that a party is precluded from denying the existence of an agreement based on their own conduct and the circumstances?

What does the three-fold enquiry entail to determine the presence of quasi-mutual assent?

In determining whether an agreement has been reached in the absence of traditional consensus, but on the basis of quasi-mutual assent, what is the extent of the duty on the party wishing to rely on such an agreement to, on the basis of reasonableness, enquire as to the contradictions that exist in the position of the other party so contained in correspondence?

August 3, 2026

Where do delictual claims fit into dispute resolution options applicable to employment disputes?