A party may retain profits derived from an unlawful contract: a look at the ‘no loss, but no gain’ principle

On 13 August 2026, the Labour Court delivered judgment in 4PL.COM Logistical Solutions Provider v Oscar Mazwi Khoza. The decision turned on whether an employee who was awarded retrospective reinstatement is only entitled to backpay in accordance with a reinstatement order upon an actual tender of services in accordance with that order.

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.

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.