Derived from French “mort” and “gage” (literally “dead pledge” because it “dies” when settled), a mortgage secures a creditor’s claim and enables it to sell the bonded property if the debtor defaults in repaying the debt. 

In the context of a home loan, strictly speaking, “mortgage” refers to the mortgage bond agreement and to the bond registered over the property. The home loan agreement is separate – it sets out the details of the loan and the terms of repayment and it could be for a different amount. We tend to use the terms “mortgage”, “mortgage bond”, and “home loan” interchangeably – but it can be important to understand the distinction in a particular legal context. If in any doubt, ask us!

The National Minimum Wage (NMW) for each “ordinary hour worked” has been increased from 1 March 2025 by 4.4% from R27,58 per hour to R28,79 per hour. 

Domestic workers: Assuming a work month of 22 days x 8 hours per day, R28,79 per hour equates to R230,32 per day or R5067,04 per month. Of course, this is just a bare legal minimum: the Living Wage calculator will help you check whether you are actually paying your domestic worker enough to cover a household’s “minimal need” (adjust the “Assumptions” in the calculator to ensure that the figures used are up-to-date).

“The right of self-defence is the first law of nature.” (St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries, 1803)

South Africa’s chronically high crime rates have left many of us wondering what the limits are when defending ourselves and our families from criminals. What weapons does the law allow us to carry, what permissions do we need to carry them, and how and when are we allowed to actually use them? 

There are of course a host of practical considerations to consider on top of the legal ones. Are you trained to use your weapon without hurting yourself or innocent bystanders? Do you know how to stop your attacker from using your own weapon against you? Do you really need a weapon at all, or could you keep yourself and your family safe with home alarms, security response services, and common sense when out and about? 

You’ll have to answer these questions yourself, but we can help with the legal ones. So, let’s have a look at the laws applying to the possession of several popular weapons, before turning to the twin questions of “legal possession” and “legal use”.

Do you need a licence for…

1. Firearms? You need a licence to own and carry a firearm. The process involves background checks, competency training, and proof that you actually need one. Possessing or carrying a firearm without a valid licence is in itself a serious criminal offence which could land you in very hot water indeed. 
   
2. Tasers and stun guns? Tasers and stun guns are legal to own and carry for self-defence purposes. Unlike firearms, they are not classified as weapons under the Firearms Control Act and do not require a licence or permit.
   
3. Pepper sprays? Pepper sprays are among the most commonly carried self-defence tools due to their ease of use, affordability, and legality. No licence or permit is required to carry one.
   
4. Bladed weapons (knives, swords and the like), batons, hunting bows, martial arts weapons etc? There are no restrictions particular to these weapons, but the legality of their possession and use is, as we shall see below, very much context-sensitive.

When can you carry them? The importance of context 

Context is vital here, in that the Dangerous Weapons Act – which carries penalties of a fine or up to three years’ imprisonment – criminalises possession of any “dangerous weapon”, defined as “any object, other than a firearm, capable of causing death or inflicting serious bodily harm, if it were used for an unlawful purpose.” 

That definition is wide enough to include all of the above (other than firearms), and this is why their possession is very much context-sensitive: 

• Lawful possession: There is no problem with possession “in pursuit of any lawful employment, duty or activity … during the participation in any religious or cultural activities, or lawful sport, recreation, or entertainment … or legitimate collection, display or exhibition of weapons.”
  
• Lawful intention: The line between legal and illegal activity is crossed when possession is in “circumstances which may raise a reasonable suspicion that the person intends to use the dangerous weapon for an unlawful purpose.” It’s important to note that all of the circumstances will be looked at very closely when determining whether an offence has been committed: place, time, and behaviour (including threats or intimidatory behaviour, manner of possession and display of the weapon among others). 

And when can you use them? Our laws on self-defence

Having to defend yourself from an attacker is awful enough – imagine then being arrested for exceeding the limits of self-defence. 

How can you avoid that? As set out by the SCA (Supreme Court of Appeal) “a person acts lawfully when he/she uses force to repel an unlawful attack, which has commenced, or is imminently threatening, upon her or somebody else’s life, bodily integrity, property, or other interests, which deserves to be protected, provided the defensive act is necessary to protect the interest threatened, is directed against the attacker, and is reasonably proportionate to the attack.”

In other words, whatever you do in self-defence must be:

1. Necessary: You must show that, in all the circumstances, you had no alternative but to use force. If you can for example avoid an attack by running away, that is what the law says you must do.
   
2. Proportionate to the threat: You can’t use more force than is needed to avert the threat, so any excessive response risks serious trouble. 
   
3. Directed only at your assailant. The critical word here is “directed”, as shown in the case below.

How will that play out in practice? Let’s consider the tragic case of a plain clothes police officer shot in error by another law enforcer.

“Hey, put it down, down, down, down … Shoot him, shoot him”

A City of Cape Town law enforcement officer’s successful appeal against his conviction on two counts of murder (for which he had been sentenced to an effective ten years’ imprisonment) provides a practical example of how our laws on self-defence really work. 

He’d been charged and convicted after shooting dead both an armed undercover policeman in civilian clothes, and the unarmed suspect the policeman had been arresting on a drug dealing charge.

The law enforcement officer and a colleague, patrolling the city streets at night, had responded to reports of an assault by a man carrying a firearm. When they got to the scene, the armed man (they had no idea at the time that he was a police officer) drew his firearm and pointed it at them despite warnings to put it down. The accused then fired two shots in self-defence, fatally injuring both the police officer and also (unintentionally) the suspect being arrested. 

Audio recordings confirmed the accused shouting frantically “Hey, put it down, put it down, down, down, down, down, down, down, down. Shoot him, shoot him.” 

The High Court set aside both murder convictions after analysing evidence from the accused, his colleague, and the prosecution’s witnesses, and finding that the accused’s version was “reasonably possibly true”, and also that it had not been disproportionate for him to fire two shots at someone pointing a firearm at him. 

This case also highlights some other important practical aspects:

1. “Reasonably possibly true” is enough: It’s up to the prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 
   
2. No armchair critics: Per the Court: “our higher courts have repeatedly stated that judicial officers should not judge the events like an armchair critic but should place themselves in the shoes of the attacked person at the critical moment, and keep in mind that the attacked person probably only had a few seconds in which to make a decision, which was of vital importance to him.”
   
3. Honest (but necessary) mistakes are OK: The Court again: “in our law putative self-defence applies when a person honestly believes, although mistakenly, that their actions were necessary to protect themselves or others from imminent harm or danger.”
   
4. Only target the assailant: The Court clearly accepted the accused officer’s evidence that he did not have any intention of shooting the unarmed suspect – he directed both shots only at the armed man directly threatening his life.

If you have any questions about the legal implications of your decision to carry a self-defence weapon, please speak to us.

“If you didn’t hear it from the horse’s mouth, it came from the other end of the horse.” (Anon)

The rapid rise of AI is hard to ignore. DeepSeek’s AI assistant, only launched on 10 January this year, has grown to rival ChatGPT in popularity, making it the most widely used AI language model at the time of writing. But DeepSeek isn’t alone in the race – major players like Copilot, Gemini 2.0, OpenAI o3, Meta AI, Grok, Anthropic and the like are all vying for our attention. The competition is fierce, and we’re spoilt for choice!

With AI becoming an integral part of so many aspects of our lives, it’s no surprise that some of us might be tempted to turn to these models for legal help. We decided to ask ChatGPT itself how it feels about that, and what follows is its unedited response. Direct from the horse’s mouth!

Our question to ChatGPT

“With the current high levels of public interest in using AI to answer questions, would you recommend that people without legal training use AI to answer legal questions and to provide legal advice on specific topics?”

ChatGPT said:

A last thought or two from us…

In a South African context, we have found inaccuracy to be even more of a risk than it is internationally – no doubt because of the relatively limited online coverage our local laws enjoy. For example, a test question on a relatively simple aspect of South African law resulted in the bot quoting New Zealand legislation back to the asker! What’s more, there are already media reports of South African lawyers finding themselves in hot water after not thoroughly checking technical AI output (and rightly so!).

Whatever you use AI for, be really careful that its answers are factually and technically accurate before relying on them. As ChatGPT itself says under every question field: “ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.”

AI is a useful tool that may be able to point you in the right direction, but it can never replace a human being – let alone a qualified lawyer. Relying on AI for legal advice could be the worst decision you ever make.

“O, I do not like that paying back.” (Falstaff, in Shakespeare’s Henry IV Part I)

A standard clause in loan agreements, suretyships and the like is the “certificate of balance” or “COB” clause. 

Typically, it will read something like this (but normally with a lot more verbiage, and bear in mind that every lender has their own version or versions): “A certificate signed by a bank manager will be prima facie proof of the amount owing in terms of the loan agreement, unless the contrary is proved.” Most homeowners will have encountered a COB clause in what we all refer to loosely as “mortgage bond agreements” (actually loan agreements where the loans are secured by bonds). 

The question is, should you be intimidated by that wording into accepting whatever amount a bank or other creditor demands from you? 

Definitely not, confirms a recent High Court decision: a COB is not conclusive proof of the amount that is owing. Rather, it is a tool to assist the creditor in proving the amount owing.

The couple who challenged the bank’s R2.1m calculations – and won

A couple fell into arrears with their monthly repayments on a bank loan which was secured by bonds over two of their properties.

The bank sent them a “Section 129 Notice” in terms of the National Credit Act (NCA). That’s a formal letter of demand to a consumer that must be sent by the creditor before it can go ahead with court action. It warns the debtor that they are in default and sets out alternative ways for them to sort the matter out – payment, debt counselling, alternative dispute resolution, and so on. 

The bank in due course applied to the High Court to enforce the loan agreement (putting both properties at risk of sale in execution). The couple, in opposing the application, said they couldn’t accept the accuracy of the R2.1m claimed by the bank in the COB. That, they said, was because they hadn’t received any statements since 2019, so they demanded a breakdown from the bank of the total amount owing. 

The bank declined to provide statements, saying that the couple had to set out a basis for requesting them, and arguing that the COB was conclusive proof of indebtedness. It was for the debtors, said the bank, to disprove the accuracy of the claim. 

Not so, held the Court: the COB is simply prima facie (“at first sight”) proof of indebtedness, and it is not up to the debtors to prove what the correct amount is.

The bank, held the Court, had failed to set out in the Section 129 Notice both the correct amount of the arrears and a breakdown of that amount, and its application accordingly failed.

Lessons for lenders and borrowers

Lenders: Ensure that the amounts you claim are accurate and supported by documentation. We can help you with that, and with checking that all your loan agreements and other documents are correctly worded and updated.  

Borrowers: If you receive an NCA Section 129 Notice or any other letter of demand, don’t just ignore it! If you aren’t sure what to do, ask us for help – and if you don’t agree with the amount claimed, demand a full breakdown and check it for accuracy. 

“The scariest thing about digital abuse is how a victim can never know how far it went, how many people it reached, and how much those who saw it bought it.” (Psychology Today)

Our laws are always protective of our rights to privacy and dignity, and a recent High Court decision confirms that defamation can be a very costly business for perpetrators.

In serious cases such as those involving “revenge porn” (a term commonly used to describe “the publication of non-consensual intimate images, recordings or depictions”) offenders face criminal prosecution as well as substantial damages claims. As evidenced by a recent High Court default judgment ordering a husband and wife to pay their victim R3.55m in damages. This after they used a fake Facebook profile and other channels to disseminate explicit images and videos of her. 

The married man, his wife, and their victim

The victim (a highly qualified professional woman) was misled by a married man into thinking that he was single. A romantic relationship developed and deepened to the stage where he proposed marriage, and she accepted. We can only imagine her horror when, six months down the line, the man’s wife appeared out of the ether with the shocking disclosure that he was already married – with one child at home and another on the way. 

The victim immediately broke off the relationship, which is when her ordeal began. The husband and wife took turns to attack her, initially with reference to what the husband called “porno videos” – explicit and intimate images and videos which he had recorded without her knowledge or consent. 

The details make for grim reading, but they are important in understanding the Court’s award of substantial damages:

• Firstly, the husband refused to stop seeing his victim. He visited her workplace, ignored her attorney’s letter demanding he stop communicating with her, and threatened to send the videos to her attorney, family and friends. 
  
• He then created a fake Facebook profile in her name, sent her a video clip to show what he had on her, then invited her friends, family, and professional colleagues to join this fake profile. He went on to publish the videos, threatening to send them to “everyone” if she did not sleep with him. They were unfortunately seen by her friends, family, and strangers before she could get the page taken down. 
  
• The second perpetrator, the man’s wife, appears to have joined in at this stage, with comments on the victim’s fake Facebook profile “calculated to defame her and depict her as a dishonest, immoral, promiscuous and adulterous person who is a disgrace to her family and profession.” The wife then took her attack directly to the victim’s workplace, barging in to her offices and making highly defamatory, embarrassing, and humiliating communications to her colleagues. An email to the victim’s bosses stated that she was a homewrecker and “was not an asset to the company if she slept with married men.”
  
• Embarrassed, humiliated and unable to continue working, the victim was so emotionally distressed that she considered suicide. Stress-related medical problems, fear of going out or of forming personal relationships, and fears for her own and her family’s safety led to severe emotional trauma. She remains on medication for PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) and is also under long term treatment by a psychologist. 

The Court had no hesitation in awarding her both the damages she claimed in full – a precedent-setting R3.55m – and legal costs against the perpetrators on the punitive attorney and client scale.

But that’s not all – criminal liability could loom

The victim in this case had obtained a protection order against her tormentors. A breach of this could expose them to sentences of 5 years’ imprisonment if she decided to pursue the matter. 

The husband and wife could also face serious criminal charges under the Films and Publications Amendment Act, with penalties of up to a R300,000 fine and 4 years’ imprisonment “for knowingly distributing private sexual photographs and films in any medium, including the Internet and social media, without the prior consent of the individual”. Moreover, the Cybercrimes Act criminalises “the disclosure of data messages of intimate images where the intimate image violates or offends the sexual integrity or dignity of the person or amounts to sexual exploitation”. That Act provides for fines and up to 3 years’ imprisonment for offenders. 

None of this does anything to change the victim’s suffering – but knowing that the law is on her side might provide her some solace as she inches towards recovery. 

“I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.” (Mark Twain)

Our Constitution guarantees everyone rights to education, but that doesn’t mean parents can necessarily pick and choose which schools they send their children to. Nor does it mean that they can expect schools to continue educating their children if they don’t pay the agreed fees.

A recent High Court judgment provides a perfect example. 

Breaking the camel’s back – 4 years of arrears totalling R407k

A father’s failure to settle a bill of over R407k in unpaid school fees for his daughter’s education at “an elite private school” in Cape Town has led to him being interdicted from enrolling her there for the 2025 school year.

The school’s patience has clearly run out after years of the father’s failure to stick to a payment plan, negotiated four years ago. The Court characterised his actions as a “modus operandi of non-payment and broken undertakings”. His explanation, that affordability is the issue and that he could not pay the outstanding arrears, cut no ice with the Court. 

The proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back”, said the Court, was the father’s “flat-out refusal to sign the most recent restructuring agreement, which had been drafted in a last-ditch effort to record in writing the terms of the most recent agreement between the [school] and the [father] so that his daughter could be enrolled at the school for her next academic year.”

The child’s best interests are always paramount

Our courts are the “upper guardians” of all minor children, and this Court was, as always, careful to consider the daughter’s best interests. 

Critically, she is not left without alternative educational opportunities – that would be a breach of her Constitutional rights as well as a violation of the strict warnings from our courts that “schools that provide basic education are under a constitutional duty not to diminish the right to basic education and at all times to act in the best interests of the child.” (Emphasis added.) 

In this instance, the school had secured “an alternative good school” for her – a government-subsidised school in the same suburb as her brother’s school. The father’s rejection of this alternative school as being “‘unsuitable’ because [it] is not predominantly white, and this does not align with his daughter’s cultural values” was summarily dismissed by the Court with the terse comment: “The less said about this argument, the better”.

The enrolment contract and the school’s obligations 

This case is an important reminder that we are bound by the agreements we make. The father, in signing his daughter’s enrolment contract, was aware that:

• The school is an independent school, getting virtually no government funding and relying on school fees and donations to fund its operations and to educate its learners.
  
• Failure to pay fees was a breach of contract which would inevitably lead to the daughter’s exclusion from the school.

Our courts, once again putting the interests of children first, insist that “any decision to suspend or expel a learner during school term must satisfy due process. These include adequate warning prior to suspension or exclusion, provision to make arrangements to settle fees, or the opportunity to make arrangements to enrol a learner at a new school.” (Emphasis added.)

The school in this case had clearly gone “above and beyond” in this regard, and the Court had no hesitation in issuing the interdict with costs payable by the father who must now enrol his daughter in another school – and pay this school its outstanding fees with interest. 

“To be prepared is half the victory.” (Miguel de Cervantes, author of Don Quixote)

Perhaps you’re a director losing sleep over the risk of losing everything if creditors sue you personally for your company’s debts because you’re asset-rich, and they can’t squeeze anything out of the company. Or maybe you worry about the company itself suing you for losses it suffers because of something you have or haven’t done.

There can be big money involved, as we shall see from the SCA (Supreme Court of Appeal) case below, so those are risks well worth keeping a close eye on. Preparation really is key here.

The general rule 

Our law has long accepted that a company has a legal personality separate from its directors and shareholders, trading in its own name and holding its own assets and liabilities. So, the good news is that, as a general rule, directors are not personally liable for their company’s debts unless:

• They sign personal sureties for those debts, or
  
• They breach their legal duties as directors. 

The not-so-good news is that those duties are many and onerous. In a nutshell, as a director, you must always perform your duties with integrity, care and diligence, without being reckless or fraudulent, without breaching your duty to act in good faith, and in the best interests of the company. 

A case in point – directors sued personally for R41m

A goods importer sued the directors of a clearing and forwarding agent in their personal capacities for R41.4m. This after the agent had taken money from the importer to pay the VAT it owed, but had only paid part of that sum over to SARS. That left the importer having to pay SARS the shortfall plus interest and penalties. 

On highly technical grounds (to do with the wording of various sections of the Companies Act), the importer’s claim was thrown out of court by firstly the High Court, and then by the SCA on appeal. 

The importer now has an opportunity to amend its papers and to have another go at the directors personally, so this saga may not be over quite yet. But what’s important on a practical level is that the judgments in this case have established clearly that:

• The “separate personality” of a company is still recognised, and directors cannot be automatically held liable for the company’s debts. Grounds for personal liability must be proved.   
  
• An attack can come from anywhere – creditors, employees, other stakeholders, and even the company itself can hold directors liable for company losses arising from any breach of their fiduciary duties towards it.
  
• A creditor must show which specific section or sections of the Act the director breached. It was the importer’s inability to identify such a section in its papers that led to its case falling at the first hurdle. But as we saw above, it now has a third crack at the whip and the warning to directors remains – comply with the Act’s many requirements, or face litigation.  
  
• Taking another tack, a creditor could use the “abuse of separate personality” angle to sue a director. That would involve proving that the director abused the company’s separate personality sufficiently for a court to hold that it is not a separate “juristic person” for the purpose of a particular claim. In other words, the director would be regarded as the debtor for that debt.

Be prepared, and protect yourself from liability

Staying on the right side of the law isn’t complicated, but you do need to know what’s required of you. Here are some tips:

• Understand your duties: Familiarise yourself with your fiduciary duties to the company on the one hand and its and your legal obligations to other stakeholders on the other.
  
• Maintain proper records and books of account: Ensure financial records are always up-to-date and accurate. Ignorance of your company’s financial health is not a defence. 
  
• Monitor compliance and financial controls: Check that financial controls are in place and adhered to, make sure that SARS returns and payments are made on time, and generally stay on top of your financial game.
  
• Don’t ignore warning signs: If your company is struggling financially, ask us for advice early. Avoid delaying tough decisions.
  
• Open communication: Transparency with all stakeholders can save you from accusations of deceit and fraud.

If you’re ever unsure about your legal obligations or find yourself in a sticky situation, we’re here to help you understand your duties, assess risks, and protect yourself personally while you focus on growing your company and its profitability.

“I never knew of a morning in Africa when I woke up that I was not happy.” (Ernest Hemingway)

Are you a visitor dreaming of waking up with giraffes on your lawn and wondering how to make it happen? Or a local being asked by overseas friends and relatives: “This country’s magic, how can I buy myself a property here?” We have all the answers…

First up, can you even buy as a foreigner?

The good news here is that we’re as welcoming to property buyers as we are to visitors! Foreigner or local, there are very few restrictions on buying SA property – and many reasons to do so. 

Why buy South African property? 

Whether you’re looking for a holiday home, an emigration or retirement option, or just an investment, there are a host of advantages to buying a property in South Africa:

• Affordability: South Africans have become used to the rand consistently underperforming against most other currencies. The latest “Big Mac Index”, for instance, shows the rand as 50% undervalued, making it the ninth weakest currency on the index. The stronger your home currency, the more affordable even very high-end South African properties will be for you.
  
• Blue skies ahead for property: For a variety of economic and political reasons, the general consensus is that 2025 should present significant growth opportunities in both the residential and commercial sectors. 
  
• Options, options, options: South Africa offers a wide range of properties, with popular options including coastal homes, secure complexes, luxury suburban houses, vibey city apartments, bushveld estates, and retirement communities. You’re sure to find something to meet both your preferences and your investment goals.
  
• Capital growth potential: Property provides a stable asset in South Africa, with great potential for capital appreciation.
  
• Strong legal protections for property owners: Our legal system, with an effective land registration process at its core, provides robust property rights for both foreign investors and locals.
  
• Potential for rental income: Our strong tourism sector and consistent demand for rental properties, combined with the affordability aspect we touched on above, provide attractive opportunities to generate rental income.

How can you finance the purchase?

Foreign buyers can obtain mortgage bonds from South African banks, typically financing up to 50% of the property’s purchase price, with the balance funded through foreign currency brought into the country. Some banks are more flexible than others in this regard, with non-residents who live and work here qualifying for up to 75% loans (possibly even more if motivated) with some lenders. 

You must transfer the monies from abroad via a bank or other authorised dealer. To simplify the process of repatriating funds when you eventually sell the property, ensure that your title deed is endorsed “Non-Resident” and keep proof of the original inflow of funds. 

Make it clear in the sale agreement that you will be importing funds from overseas – and be sure that the deadlines set for you to pay the deposit, to get bond approval, and to pay the balance of the purchase price, are all realistic. It goes without saying that you should get a local lawyer to check every aspect of the agreement carefully.

How does the registration process work?

It all begins with you making an offer, which – if accepted by the seller – becomes a deed of sale or sale agreement. This is followed by the transfer of ownership of the property to you in the local Deeds Office in a process managed by a conveyancing attorney. Count on it taking about three months – perhaps a bit less if all goes smoothly or a bit more if there are unexpected delays. 

If you won’t be here that long, you will need to sign transfer and bond documentation overseas – normally at a South African embassy/consulate or (in some countries) before a Notary Public or other authorised person. Ask the conveyancer for advice specific to your country.

Taxes and other costs to consider

Foreign buyers are subject to local taxes, including transfer duty (a government tax levied on property transactions) and other costs of transfer. A cash flow projection will ensure that you are able to pay these as they fall due.

If you sell your property at some point, Capital Gains Tax may apply to the profit you make from the sale. 

Will I still need a visa?

Owning property here does not give you any form of residency status, so you will still need a valid visa, work permit or residence permit as applicable.

“One of the hallmarks of an enlightened egalitarian society is the right to freedom of religion.” (Extract from judgment below)

Our courts do not tolerate unfair discrimination in the workplace, and employers need to tread particularly carefully when it comes to the concept of “automatically unfair discrimination”. Get that one wrong and you could be penalised with an order to pay your employee two years of earnings as compensation.

What is “automatically unfair discrimination”?

A dismissal is automatically unfair if based on any “arbitrary ground”, including, but not limited to, a person’s race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, family responsibility, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, HIV status, conscience, belief, political opinion, culture, language or birth (aspects relevant to this case have been highlighted).

However, “a dismissal may be fair if the reason for dismissal is based on an inherent requirement of the particular job” (emphasis added).

Let’s discuss these concepts with reference to a recent Labour Appeal Court (LAC) case.

“Sorry, I can’t work on the Sabbath”

Employed as a regional marketing manager by an international hospitality company, an employee signed a standard employment contract which, after specifying “normal hours of work” as being 8.30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Mondays to Fridays, with an hour for lunch, also provided for circumstances in which he could be required to work outside those hours.

Two months after starting work, the employee dropped what presumably came as something of a bombshell to his bosses. He said that as a Seventh Day Adventist, his religious beliefs precluded him from travelling or attending events on the Sabbath (i.e. from sunset on Friday until sunset on Saturday). He hadn’t made any mention of this in his job interviews, nor had he challenged the wording of his contract as to the required work hours.

Initially his line manager was able to accommodate him by covering for him on the problem days (travelling, it seems, to Kenya, Mozambique and Zambia as well as locally), but after 16 months she could not continue. He was offered an alternative position which didn’t require him to work on the Sabbath, but that came with a 45% pay cut.

The manager declined this offer, and he was dismissed after a disability enquiry. He challenged his dismissal, and the Labour Court, after finding it to have been automatically unfair, ordered his reinstatement.

His employer appealed this judgment to the LAC, which overturned that ruling and held that the dismissal was in fact fair.

Lessons to learn, points to ponder

The reasoning and the legal principles that underpinned the employer’s success in this case provide a useful blueprint for both employers and employees who might find themselves in a similar situation. Let’s address them point by point:

• Job interviews: It no doubt counted against the employee that he hadn’t mentioned the limitations on his working hours in his interviews, nor had he queried the wording of his employment contract. As a job applicant, be clear about any constraints on your work availability outside of normal hours, and query anything in your contract that might conflict with them. As an employer, make it an integral part of your interview process to check that the applicant understands your requirements as to both normal and additional work hours, and agrees to them.
  
• Employment contracts: The employer’s success in the LAC would not have been quite as easily won if its contract hadn’t clearly stated that the manager “will be required to work longer hours from time to time without additional compensation” (emphasis added). A “job flexibility requirement clause” also helped it when it came to the offer of an alternative position.
  
• Automatically unfair discrimination: There are two questions here. Was there discrimination? And if so, was it based on an arbitrary ground such as the employee’s religious beliefs? The employer in this case conceded on both aspects.
  
• “An inherent requirement of the job”: It was then for the employer to convince the court that the discrimination was permissible because the job requirement in question is “inherent or inescapable in the performance of the job”. Such a requirement has to be “rationally connected to the performance of the job”, “adopted in a genuine and good faith belief that it was necessary to the fulfilment of a legitimate work-related purpose” and “reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of that purpose.” The employer had no problem in proving all that. But that wasn’t the end of it…
  
• Accommodating the employee: As an employer, you can’t simply say “tough luck, your religious beliefs mean you can’t do the job as per its inherent requirements so off you go.” You must prove “that it is impossible [for you] to accommodate the individual employee without imposing undue hardship or insurmountable operational difficulty.” It was on this leg that the employer nearly came unstuck – while two of the judges agreed that it had passed this test, the third judge disagreed. If the decision had gone against it, the employer would have been penalised with a compensatory order of 24 months’ earnings.

Bottom line here is that you must act reasonably and in context in trying to enable an employee to continue in employment.

Our employment laws are complex and the penalties for getting them wrong are severe – so don’t hesitate to ask us for help if you’re in any doubt.