Off-premises cannabis consumption and the workplace: Striking a balance between zero-tolerance policies and employee rights. An analysis of Enever v Barloworld

by | Jun 6, 2026 | SALJ, SALJ V143 I2 2026

ARTICLE

Off-premises cannabis consumption and the workplace: Striking a balance between zero-tolerance policies and employee rights. An analysis of Enever v Barloworld

Authors: Estie Gresse & Werner Gresse

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, North-West University; Senior Lecturer, School for Industrial Psychology and Human Resource Management, North-West University
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 143 Issue 2, p. 339-372
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v143/i2a6

Abstract

South African labour law recognises both employers’ rights to discipline and employees’ rights to fair labour practices. While the Labour Relations Act (‘LRA’), the Constitution and the Employment Equity Act prohibit unfair discrimination and guarantee fair dismissals, employers may implement workplace safety rules, including zero-tolerance drug policies. Following Prince v Minister of Justice (2018), which decriminalised private cannabis use, disputes have arisen over employees’ dismissal for positive tests. In Enever v Barloworld (2024), a category analyst was dismissed under her employer’s zero-tolerance policy after repeatedly testing positive for cannabis used privately for health and religious reasons. The Labour Court upheld the dismissal, emphasising workplace safety. However, the Labour Appeal Court overturned it, finding the dismissal to be automatically unfair and discriminatory under s 187(1)(f ) of the LRA, as it impaired the employee’s dignity and failed to distinguish between workplace safety risks and private use. This article argues that employers must reassess zero-tolerance cannabis policies to account for job requirements, fairness and constitutional rights, to balance workplace discipline with employee rights in an appropriate way.

Navigating intestate inheritance rights: The case for platonic partners in South Africa’s Intestate Succession Act

by | Jun 6, 2026 | SALJ, SALJ V143 I2 2026

ARTICLE

Navigating intestate inheritance rights: The case for platonic partners in South Africa’s Intestate Succession Act

Author: Fatima Osman

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Cape Town
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 143 Issue 2, p. 373-396
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v143/i2a7

Abstract

South Africa’s Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987 privileges the nuclear family and, in particular, marriage and marriage-like relationships in intestate inheritance. This article examines the exclusion of platonic relationships from intestate inheritance, situating the problem within South Africa’s evolving family structures and jurisprudence. The article discusses how legal reform (through jurisprudence and the Reform of Customary Law of Succession and Regulation of Related Matters Act 11 of 2009) has kept intestate inheritance tethered to a narrow marriage-centric model. It draws on comparative law to demonstrate both the possibilities and limitations of extending benefits usually reserved for marriage to other relationships. The article argues for an amendment to the Intestate Succession Act that would empower the Master of the High Court to consider the totality of the circumstances and relationships of dependency in making an order for the devolution of an intestate estate. This discretionary remedy may provide relief to vulnerable dependants pending broader legislative reform. By decentring marriage in intestate inheritance, the article contributes to the broader project of aligning family law with social reality and fostering inclusive protections for diverse South African households.

Aspects of cancellation clauses for breach of contract: The impact of consumer legislation, and whether cancellation clauses should apply to partial repudiation or very minor breaches

by | Jun 6, 2026 | SALJ, SALJ V143 I2 2026

ARTICLE

Aspects of cancellation clauses for breach of contract: The impact of consumer legislation, and whether cancellation clauses should apply to partial repudiation or very minor breaches

Author: Tjakie Naude

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Professor of Law, University of Cape Town
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 143 Issue 2, p. 397-420
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v143/i2a8

Abstract

Consumer legislation impacts upon suppliers’ freedom to draft cancellation clauses. The view that it is not necessary in the case of repudiation to follow a procedure for cancellation prescribed in an agreed cancellation clause should apply where the breaching party repudiated the entire agreement or all outstanding obligations. By contrast, it should not generally apply where the breaching party repudiated only a part of the agreement, because the argument that the breaching party repudiated the whole of the agreement, including the cancellation clause, does not apply to partial repudiation. An exception would be where the breaching party persists in the partial repudiation despite repeated demands to retract the repudiation. A cancellation clause that allows the aggrieved party to cancel the contract immediately, without requiring the breaching party to issue an ultimatum, should not apply to an insignificant breach. Whether a breach is insignificant should depend on whether it is non-culpable and has little impact on the aggrieved party. If this rule is not regarded as acceptable for contracts generally, it should at least apply in the case of lease, as the tenant’s possessory rights are affected, with serious consequences for the tenant. There is support for these rules in foreign law.

A comparative analysis of the legal regime for modern corporate rescue in Nigeria and the United Kingdom

by | May 24, 2026 | JCCL, JCCL V10 I2

A comparative analysis of the legal regime for modern corporate rescue in Nigeria and the United Kingdom

Author: Akaayar, Viashima Simon

ISSN: 2521-2575
Affiliations: Associate Professor, Department of Commercial and Industrial Law, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria
Source: Journal of Corporate and Commercial Law & Practice, Volume 10 Issue 2, 2024, p. 1-28
https://doi.org/10.47348/JCCL/V10/i2a1

Abstract

This study is a comparative legal analysis of the legal regime for modern corporate rescue mechanisms in Nigeria and the United Kingdom (UK). For the purpose of this paper, modern rescue mechanisms are Company Voluntary Arrangements (CVA) and administration orders. They are described here as ‘modern’ because corporate rescue, in general, is not entirely new. However, the CVA and administration orders have recently emerged in the insolvency space in Nigeria. Interestingly, Nigeria’s modern rescue regime was modelled after UK Insolvency Act 1986. This study, therefore, comparatively examines the nature and dynamics of the modern corporate rescue in Nigeria and the UK. The primary goals are to determine the adequacy, or otherwise, of Nigeria’s legal regime, and to comparatively interrogate UK policy lessons and judicial experiences for Nigeria. It argues that the introduction of the CVA and administration order under the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020 is laudable. It is laudable because, at last, Nigeria has watered down the focus on liquidation of companies in financial distress. Instead, companies in financial distress now have an option to be revived and given the opportunity to operate as a going concern. However, beyond a lack of in-depth literature, the new regime is faced with some legal challenges that are capable of defeating the benefits of modern corporate rescue procedures in Nigeria. Consequently, this study examines some of these legal challenges and proffers recommendations for the reform of modern corporate rescue procedure in Nigeria.