Contact
CCMA | Dismissal | Failure to report

See no evil, speak no evil: reporting misconduct

Enforcing workplace rules frequently relies on employees reporting misconduct that they have witnessed by fellow employees to their employer. This is vital for maintaining workplace discipline and ensuring that employees adhere to the employer's rules. But what is the worst that can happen to an employee who elects to protect a fellow employee by keeping quiet about their transgressions?

The CCMA recently adjudicated an unfair dismissal dispute in the case of Makhoba v The Magic Company [2024] 6 BALR 632 (CCMA). In this matter, the employer found two employees close to one another who appeared to have been consuming alcohol on the employer’s premises. The employer could not prove that the dismissed employee B  indeed consumed alcohol on the employer’s premises.

The employer’s policy specifically provided that “the employee shall immediately report any breach of company standards and rules.” Employee B was aware of this rule in the workplace and could offer no plausible reason for his failure to report employee A’s misconduct as he had had sufficient time to do so. 

The CCMA also mentioned that Employee B’s dishonesty during testimony coupled with his lack of remorse and lack of appreciation for the wrongfulness of his conduct pointed to the unlikelihood of the possibility of correcting Employee B’s behaviour through progressive discipline. In light thereof, it was found that the employer’s dismissal was substantively fair. The CCMA thereby confirmed that a failure to report wrongdoing could lead to dismissal as a valid sanction by an employer.

Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and is not necessarily that of the firm. The content is provided for information only and should not be seen as an exact or complete exposition of the law. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on the content for any reason whatsoever and no action should be taken on the basis thereof unless its application and accuracy has been confirmed by a legal advisor. The firm and author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action taken on the basis of this content without further written confirmation by the author(s). 

October 30, 2024
Transfer duty explained

Transfer duty explained

by | Nov 18, 2025 | , , ,

Transfer duty is an indirect tax paid on the acquisition of any property acquired by any person by way of a transaction or in any other way. The concepts of “acquire” and “acquisition” are not defined in the Transfer Duty Act 40 of 1949. However, the courts have consistently examined and clarified the meaning of the term “acquisition” as it relates to section 2(1), which is the main charging provision in the Transfer Duty Act. In CIR v Freddies Consolidated Mines Ltd, Centlivres CJ states the following (at 311C): “The word ‘acquired’ in the charging section (section 2) must therefore be construed as meaning the acquisition of a right to acquire the ownership of property. It has been argued that the term “transfer duty” is misleading, because it is in fact a duty imposed, among other things, on the consideration given by a purchaser of property for the right conferred on him to acquire the ownership of property.” The purpose of this article is to provide a basic overview of the circumstances under which transfer duty is applicable and to clarify the party liable for its payment in property transfers.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest