The Labour Court weighs in on the application of the Prescription Act in disciplinary proceedings

The polluter pays principle is a foundational concept of modern environmental law. At its core, it provides that those responsible for environmental harm must bear the costs of preventing, managing, and remedying that harm. The principle ensures that the financial burden of environmental degradation is not shifted to the public or the State but remains with the party whose activities caused the damage. In South Africa, this principle is given effect by section 2(4)(p) of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (“NEMA”), which provides that the costs of remedying, and preventing future pollution, environmental degradation and adverse health effects must be paid by those responsible for the harm. The principle seeks to ensure that the financial burden of environmental damage is not shifted onto the public or the State.

The Labour Court, in Rotunda Proprietary Limited v Sam, considered whether a former employee who breached a restraint of trade that had been made an order of court was guilty of contempt of court in circumstances where the underlying restraint of trade had, by effluxion of time, expired.

On 28 November 2025, the Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”) handed down judgment in Tekoa Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd v Alfred Nzo District Municipality [2025] ZASCA 180, declaring tender documents unlawful for vagueness, despite the work already having been completed.

On 29 May 2026, the Constitutional Court in NUMSA and Others v Industrial Oleo Chemical Products [2026] ZACC [22] clarified that, in a facilitated largescale retrenchment, it is not necessary to first refer a dispute to conciliation before approaching the Labour Court to challenge the substantive fairness of the dismissal. The judgment brings certainty in relation to section 189A(7) of the Labour Relations Act (“LRA”), following a line of conflicting judgments in the Labour and Labour Appeal Courts.