Skip to main content

Article 44/2022

Under what circumstances should contempt of court proceedings be utilised instead of having a writ issued?

_____________________________________

Section 163 of the LRA provides that judgments and orders of the labour court may be executed as if they were judgments or orders of the high court.  Before steps are taken by a judgment creditor to sue out a writ of execution in satisfaction of the judgment in his favour, it has to be ascertained whether the judgment was in a form allowing enforcement by means of a writ.  In the case of a judgment ad pecuniam solvendam (directing the judgment debtor to pay a sum of money), it is appropriate to seek its enforcement by means of a writ of execution.  On the other hand, in the case of a judgment ad factum praestandum, an order is enforceable by means of contempt proceedings (Hendor (CC) clearly established that an order of retrospective payment of remuneration is an order ad factum praestandum, enforceable by means of contempt of court proceedings).

September 7, 2026

The previous article dealt with the distinction between misconduct constituting desertion and misconduct constituting abscondment – see, further, in this regard, Okhahlamba Local Municipality v Mabuya (2021) 32 SALLR 12 (LC).

In this article, what we attempt to do is provide some clarity as to a very different misconduct, namely, the misconduct of deeming desertion.

August 31, 2026

What is the difference between desertion and abscondment?

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?