Skip to main content

Article 43/2021

Labour Edge

What is the non-exhaustive list of factors to be taken into account to determine whether or not an employee has a reasonable expectation of renewal?


In Pikitup Johannesburg (Soc) Ltd v Muguto and Others (2019) 30 SALLR 186 (LC), such list was identified to include:

  1. the terms and conditions of the contract (see IMATU and Others v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others [2014] 6 BLLR 545 (LAC), at paragraph [34]);
  2. the past practice of renewals or extensions;
  3. the nature of the work and the reason for fixed term contract arrangements (see v Mediterranean Woollen Mills (Pty) Ltd v SACTWU 1998 (2) SA 1099 (SCA); [1998] 6 BLLR 549 (A));
  4. any assurances or undertakings by the employer that the contract would be renewed/extended; and
  5. the failure to give reasonable notice of non-renewal of the contract.

In this case, the fixed term contract entered into between Pikitup and Muguto had been renewed on no less than four occasions, from its inception on 24 July 2008 until 15 April 2015, when Muguto had been informed of the final extension.

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?

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?

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