Article 22/2023

What is the interpretive approach to be adopted in respect of, inter alia:

  • pre-trial minutes
  • content of the BCEA
  • strike ballot guidelines
  • protest action
  • the content of the LRA
  • a separation agreement
  • benefits
  • advisory arbitration award
  • secondary strikes, etc?

_____________________________________

Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality 2012 (4) SA 593 (SCA) (para [18] et seq) formulates the approach to be adopted when interpreting legislation, other statutory instruments or contracts and essentially entails the following:

  • the starting point is attributing meaning to words used in the aforesaid documents
  • the language of the provisions must be read with reference to the context (reading the document as a whole), the purpose of the provision(s) and the background preparation and production of
    the document
  • obviously, consideration must be given to the language used with reference to the ordinary rules of grammar and syntax
  • where more than one meaning is possible, each meaning must be weighted with reference to the aforesaid factors and a sensible meaning is to be preferred to one that leads to insensible or unbusinesslike results or undermines the apparent purpose of the document
  • judges (and arbitrators) must be alert not to substitute what they think is reasonable, sensible or businesslike for the actual words used in the documents
  • the process of interpretation is objective and not subjective

In terms of s34(1) of the BCEA, an employer may not make deductions from an employee’s remuneration unless, subject to s34(2), the employee agrees, in writing, or the deduction is made in terms of a law, collective agreement, court order or arbitration award.

A case is moot and therefore not justiciable if it no longer presents an existing or live controversy. With reference to National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others [1999] ZACC 17; 2000 (2) SA 1 (CC), how did the supreme court of appeal, in Mhlontlo Local Municipality and Others v Ngcangula and Another (2024) 35 SALLR 132 (SCA) recently deal with this issue?

The principle underlying the doctrine of peremption is that no person can be allowed to take up two positions inconsistent with one another, or, as is commonly expressed, to blow hot and cold, to approbate and reprobate when considering pursuing litigation. With reference to Qoboshiyane NO v Avusa Publishing Eastern Cape [2012] ZASCA 166; 2013 (3) SA 315 (SCA), what is the test to be applied to determine whether or not a party has perempted its right to institute legal proceedings?