Month: September 2025

“There’s no trust, no faith, no honesty in men.” (William Shakespeare, in Romeo and Juliet)

A recent Labour Court decision is a stark reminder to employees that an employment relationship is founded on trust, and that any breach of that trust could justify dismissal.

Pocketing a 50c coin to balance her till

The responsibilities of a bank teller included “balancing cash daily, reporting differences, as well as maintaining effective security controls, including maintaining a high level of honesty, integrity and ethical standards.” 

Her clean record over the four years of her employment ended abruptly when a monthly surprise check of the cash balance in her till revealed a discrepancy in the form of a bag of R1 coins totalling R20, unaccounted for and therefore in violation of banking rules and procedures.

The resulting investigation revealed, as recorded on CCTV, the teller’s various failed attempts at balancing her till, which she had ultimately succeeded in doing only by pocketing a 50c coin from the till.

A subsequent disciplinary enquiry found her guilty on charges of misconduct in the form of dishonesty, falsification of balancing records and misappropriation of funds from her till. She referred her dismissal case to the CCMA (Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration), which refused her application.

In finding her dismissal to have been fair, the arbitrator rejected both the teller’s claims that her till discrepancies resulted from her ill health, and her denial of taking the 50c to manipulate the system (the CCTV record was, it seems, crystal clear on that point). The court also remarked on her contradictory statements as to the “miraculous” bag of R1 coins. 

Critically, the teller had been trained in her duties and was well aware of what was expected of her in line with the bank’s Code of Ethics. Moreover, the bank’s Disciplinary Code provides that falsification of bank records is a dismissible offence as a destroyer of the employer-employee trust relationship.

Undaunted, the teller took the CCMA’s award on review to the Labour Court, which made short work of confirming her dismissal.

It’s the breach of trust that counts, not the amount involved

As our courts have confirmed many times, the employer-employee relationship requires an employee to act honestly and in good faith. The trust which the employer places in the employee underlies their whole relationship, and any breach of that trust risks dismissal. 

Even an apparently minor act of dishonesty can justify dismissal if it has resulted in a breakdown of trust that makes continued employment intolerable. The final decision of whether or not dismissal will be appropriate for a particular act of misconduct will depend on all the circumstances.

4 practical tips for employers

For employers, preparation is key in ensuring that you are able to dismiss a dishonest employee without falling foul of our employment laws. Start with the basics:

1. Your employment contracts and codes are critical: As we saw in this case, the bank’s strictly worded Code of Ethics and Disciplinary Code were central to proving the fairness of the dismissal. Your employment contracts should incorporate reference to zero-tolerance policies that leave employees no wiggle room when it comes to understanding that any act of theft or dishonesty, no matter how minor, will justify dismissal. Incorporate reference also to the monitoring and checking processes you will apply – it was the “surprise monthly till check” that cooked this teller’s goose. 
   
   Every workplace will have its own unique requirements in this regard, so contracts and codes tailored to your circumstances are vital.
   
2. Training is essential: As we again saw in this case, a deciding factor in the Court’s decision was the fact that the teller had received adequate training in her duties and so couldn’t claim ignorance of the requirements that she balance her till, report discrepancies, act honestly, etc. 
   
3. Proof is key: The CCTV footage of the teller pocking money from her till was critical in proving that she deliberately flouted the rules and stole from her till. Whatever monitoring devices and processes you may have in place (and do remember to ask us how you can use things like CCTV monitoring without being accused of an unfair labour practice!), make sure to collate and preserve it as soon as any incident of misconduct comes to light. You might have to retain it for a long time (nearly four years so far in this case). 
   
4. Your disciplinary process must also be fair: Remember that proving “substantive fairness” (a fair and lawful reason for dismissal) is only one part of the equation. You must also be able to show that all your disciplinary processes are “procedurally fair” (i.e. that a fair process was followed).

As always with our employment laws, the requirements are complex and the costs of getting them wrong are high, so don’t hesitate to ask us for advice and help every step of the way.

“Dance like no one is watching, but text, post, and email like it will be read in court one day.” (Anon)

When can the target of rude comments and insults on a community Facebook group sue?

The High Court recently grappled with a community debate over free-roaming jackals that turned sour.

The golf estate and the Facebook group

The scene here is one of Sandton’s large and secure golf estates, whose closed Facebook group, aimed at fostering community spirit, reaches some 1,800 residents. 

Jackals roaming freely on the estate were at the heart of this dispute, with residents split into two opposing camps.

1. In one camp, those believing that all wildlife in the estate should be left alone – including the jackals. 
   
2. In the other camp, those arguing that, as well as being predators dangerous to other animals (including domestic pets), jackals are carriers of rabies. Presumably this group advocates some form of control measure, no doubt an emotive topic.

Cat pics and Karen insults 

The online debate between the two sides began civilly enough, but that changed with a series of posts by a prominent supporter of the “hands-off-the-jackals” lobby. In criticising the other camp, she targeted one of them by name. Stung, the recipient of what she perceived as insulting and defamatory attacks, demanded that her opponent remove the posts and apologise to her.

Central to the outcome of this case are the posts themselves. They included an image of a cat in a spiked vest (with the comment “maybe this will help the cats”), suggestions that the target of the posts shouldn’t be living in Africa, that she had published false information on the group, and that she was “stupid” and a “stupid keyboard muppet”. She read further posts as referring to her as a “B” (she took this to mean “bitch”) and as caricaturing her as a dog (with a bob haircut like hers) and as a “Karen”. 

Off to court with a two-pronged attack

As a professional (actually a business rescue practitioner), the complainant wasn’t prepared to take any of that lying down. Offended by the poster’s refusal to retract, she sued her in the Magistrate’s Court for damages of R250,000, asking also for orders to remove the posts and apologise publicly for them. 

She lost, appealed to the High Court and lost again. Why?

It’s important to note firstly that she had launched a two-pronged legal attack, enabling her to prove a valid claim for either or both of actionable insult (where offending statements injure your dignity or self-worth) and defamation (where they damage your reputation). To win, she needed to show either that the statements referred to her and were defamatory of her, or that they were wrongful and hurt her dignity.

Her failure to convince the Court that she had a case was partly because she hadn’t been able to prove all the facts needed to establish a case. But it was also rooted in two principles which anyone engaging in public debate (online or otherwise), and anyone thinking that an insult is perfectly fine if it’s structured as a “joke” or “jest”, needs to take note of. 

Let’s have a look at each principle.

Public debate is not for sissies

The Court: “The law expects those who take part in public discourse to do so with a degree of pliancy and robustness. A subjectively hurtful remark is not wrongful unless a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would take exception to it.” 

More particularly, this being a closed group of neighbours in a security complex: “Those who engage in online debate about matters of mutual interest between neighbours ought reasonably to foresee that the criticism they sustain may be tart and, at times, discourteous.” 

In this case, while some of the posts were definitely rude and hurtful, no reasonable person would have thought that they had tarnished their target’s reputation. Rather, readers would have thought less of the poster “because she was unable to keep to civil terms of debate.”

Everything said in jest?

Some, but certainly not all, “jokes” are safely posted. The poster of this “cat in spikes” picture said it was just a light-hearted joke, and the Court agreed. A joke can certainly be defamatory if it’s a deliberate attack on the target’s reputation – but in this context, it was just “a satire of the entire debate between the parties.” It wasn’t, said the Court, “of the defamatory kind”. 

Turning to what appears to have been another attempt at a joke in the form of the dog caricature and “Karen” reference, what saved the poster here was the lack of proof that this was actually aimed at the claimant. Had it been, calling her a “Karen” (“a privileged, entitled woman with a thin skin and a quick temper”) would have opened her up to ridicule and “would probably have been defamatory”. 

There’s a fine line or two there. Call us before posting if you aren’t sure that you’re on solid ground!

“You aren’t buying a house, you’re buying a lifestyle.” (Anon)

As more and more residential properties are subdivided and developed, an increasing number of homes are effectively cut off from direct access to the nearest public street or road. 

That’s where the “panhandle” comes into play, a narrow strip of land (looking on diagrams very much like the handle of a pan, hence the name) which gives the needed street access to the “landlocked” property. The panhandle can be owned by the property using it as an access road, or it can be a right of way in favour of the property over neighbouring land.

A recent High Court run-in between two neighbours over a panhandle right of way highlights the mistakes made by the various parties involved, and so provides a neat “must do” checklist for everyone in such a situation – buyers, sellers and neighbours alike.

“Wait, what right of way?”

You can imagine the reaction of a property buyer when he was told, only after taking transfer, that his nice little plot was lumped with a registered servitude. Not only did he have the neighbour freely crossing his land at will via a four-metre wide panhandle road, but he also found himself blocked from part of his own land by the neighbour’s gate.

Luckily for the buyer, the servitude turned out to be a temporary one. The wording stated clearly that it was to provide a right of way only until alternate access became available to the neighbour. And a consolidation of neighbouring properties (involving the creation of eight mini subdivisions for a property development) had indeed opened up such an alternative access route. 

The buyer accordingly asked the High Court to declare the servitude lapsed, and to order that all “barriers and obstructions” to the panhandle be removed. His neighbour fought back, arguing amongst other things that he had paid R35,000 to the original owner of the buyer’s property as part of a verbal agreement to increase the panhandle’s width from four to six metres.

The neighbour’s problem here is that a servitude has to be in writing, so his verbal agreement with the original owner for a six-metre servitude was unenforceable – certainly against this buyer who had never agreed to it. For a servitude to bind a subsequent buyer of the property, it needs to be registered against the title deed.

The Court accordingly held that the registered four-metre servitude had lapsed and that the supposed six-metre servitude agreement was unenforceable against the buyer. End result, the neighbour loses his right of way and must remove all “obstructions” (the gate, presumably) on it. 

Buyers, sellers and neighbours: Mistakes to avoid

Buyers: Don’t only wake up after transfer to the fact that your new property is subject to a right of way or other right of access – it could do serious harm both to your property value and to your enjoyment of it. Check the title deed before making an offer. As we shall see below, relying on the seller to disclose a servitude during the sales process can be wishful thinking…

Sellers: The seller in this case didn’t disclose the servitude, as he was obliged to, in the mandatory disclosure form – the form that every property seller must sign and provide to the buyer. In it a seller must disclose not only any known property defects, but also things like encumbrances, zoning and title deed restrictions, unapproved alterations or additions, and so on. Presumably the seller’s omission in this case was just an oversight, but he could still easily have been sued by the buyer. It’s vital that you always complete that form fully and accurately.

Neighbours: As the neighbour in this case found out to his cost, if you are reliant on a right of way, make sure it’s granted in a written and registered servitude. He might perhaps have been able to enforce his verbal agreement against the original owner, but it was worthless against a subsequent buyer who knew nothing of the agreement. 

“All that lives must die, passing through nature to eternity.” (William Shakespeare, in Hamlet)

Master’s Office records suggest that less than a third of us leave behind a will when we die. That’s astonishing, given the fact that death is one of the few absolute certainties in our lives. 

Why do so many of us put our families at risk like this? 

“I don’t have a will because…”

It’s easy to find excuses for doing nothing about a will, with surveys conducted both locally and overseas suggesting that people’s failure to act is normally rooted in one or more of these common excuses:

We’ll help you structure a will and estate plan that honour your last wishes and provide proper protection for your loved ones.