Article 8/2022

Is there a difference between an organ of state, such as a municipality, offering employment to settle a claim and an employer in an unfair dismissal dispute offering such a settlement?

_____________________________________

In Erasmus v Dr Beyers Naude Local Municipality and Jack (2021) 32 SALLR 6 (ECG), the following approach was adopted:

  • the municipality argued that it was ‘not really’ making an appointment but legitimately settling a claim
  • the high court held that it was not correct that the municipality could rely on a transfer policy, seeing that it was only applicable to employees in the employ of the municipality and Erasmus (seeing that she had resigned) was not an employee at the stage the offer was made – this is different from settling a dismissal matter by means of reinstatement because reinstatement does not entail the conclusion of a fresh contract of employment
  • furthermore, it was held that an organ of state is not entitled to fill vacancies for ulterior purposes, such as the settling of litigation
  • consequently, it was further held that an agreement reached by Erasmus to fill a vacancy would not pass constitutional muster, would be contrary to public policy and thus unenforceable (Corruption Watch NPC and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa; Nxasana v Corruption Watch NPC and Others 2018 (10) BCLR 1179 (CC), at paragraph [29])
June 12, 2025

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.

June 5, 2025

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?

May 29, 2025

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?