Breach of a Restraint Order: When it Is Not Contempt of Court

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.

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.