Back left to right: Charl Mocke (CMV), Kevin Kitchenbrand (UOAS), Johan Liebenberg (VDT), Arnold Prinsloo (ESKORT),
Front left to right: Adrie van Staden (Beeld-kinderfonds), Abie Maphala (ABSA), Piet Joubert (AIDA), Steinman de Bruyn (VDT).
Back left to right: Charl Mocke (CMV), Kevin Kitchenbrand (UOAS), Johan Liebenberg (VDT), Arnold Prinsloo (ESKORT),
Front left to right: Adrie van Staden (Beeld-kinderfonds), Abie Maphala (ABSA), Piet Joubert (AIDA), Steinman de Bruyn (VDT).
Dress codes are a familiar part of many workplaces, yet employers often fail to calibrate how far they are allowed to go in regulating employee personal appearance. While employers may enforce standards of neatness, safety and professionalism, these rules cannot override constitutional rights, nor can they operate in a discriminatory manner. A recent reminder of this emerged from the Supreme Court of Appeal, where the court had to consider the fairness of dismissing correctional officers for refusing to cut their dreadlocks, contrary to the employer’s dress code.
The Competition Commission of South Africa (“Competition Commission”) identified a need to guide merger parties and stakeholders on claiming confidentiality over information. In September 2025, the Competition Commission issued Guidelines on the Commission’s handling of confidential information (“Guidelines”), which, however, are not binding on the Competition Commission, the Competition Tribunal or the Competition Appeal Court, but must be taken into account by these authorities when interpreting and applying the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (“Competition Act”).
In a recent Western Cape court case where the court ordered the termination of joint ownership of properties, an interesting question arose as to whether the termination of joint ownership did not amount to an eviction contrary to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 19 of 1998 (PIE Act)? We look at the requirements for the termination of joint ownership by our courts and whether this can infringe on the PIE Act.