Tag: procedural fairness

Two recent High Court judgments, in which the powers of the South African Revenue Service (SARS) came under close scrutiny, have delivered a clear message. Despite the wide powers granted under the Tax Administration Act, No. 28 of 2011 (TAA), those powers remain discretionary. However, they are not unfettered. This marks an important instance of court scrutiny of SARS’ powers.

Angry employers too often fire errant employees in anger. However, there is no place for anger in the implementation of discipline. This is because the resultant hasty action is likely to trip the employer up at the CCMA. This risk is central when firing employees in anger. A case in point is that of Marcel Pharmacy (Pty) Ltd vs Justine Afrika (SAFLII 11 March 2026, Labour Court case NO: C337/2023). Here, the employee switched off the lights of the pharmacy where she worked.

In safety-critical sectors, the reliability of breathalyser testing must be unquestionable. Any potential for miscalibration carries serious risks. These range from compromised safety to significant legal liabilities. To ensure accuracy, employers must prioritise regular calibration and maintenance

On 28 June 2023, the High Court handed down a landmark judgment where the decision by the Minister of the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) not to extend the longstanding Zimbabwean Exemption Permit (ZEP) after 31 December 2021 was found to be invalid, unlawful, and unconstitutional.

The issue is whether an employer may utilise Zoom when conducting consultations in a retrenchment exercise. If not, does the continuation of the consultations in such circumstances result in procedural unfairness? The Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA) does not regulate how section 189 consultations are to be held (i.e. in person or via video conference).