Skip to main content

Article 23/2023

Delictual claims may be instituted by an employee as an alternative, or in conjunction with various statutory claims. How do these civil claims, based on delict, fit into the following scenarios:

  • an automatically unfair dismissal in terms of s187(1)(f) of the LRA
  • a constructive dismissal in terms of s186(1)(e) of the LRA or
  • unfair discrimination in terms of s6(3) of the EEA?

_____________________________________

  • A civil claim, based on delict, may be instituted by an employee as an alternative claim to the
    aforesaid statutory claims, or in conjunction therewith
  • The first potential delictual claim is to be based on the actio legis aquiliae – this entails that, if the employer negligently or intentionally and wrongfully caused patrimonial (pecuniary) damage to the employee in the aforesaid statutory environment, then the employee, in addition or alternatively to the statutory claims, has access to such a delictual claim
  • Alternatively, and in addition to a claim based on the actio legis aquiliae, the employee may also have a second potential delictual claim based on the actio iniuriarum – if the employer intentionally (dolus animus injuriandi) infringed the interest of personality of the employee, the employee will also be able to recover sentimental damages (solatium)
  • In respect of both the actio legis aquiliae and the actio iniuriarum, the amount of damages that the employee would be entitled to is based on the proven damages

(see, further, Erasmus v Dr Beyers Naude Local Municipality and Jack (2021) 32 SALLR 6 (ECG)

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?