Seafarers’ Right to Strike in South Africa

by | Oct 31, 2026 | SLR, SLR V37 I1

Seafarers’ Right to Strike in South Africa

Authors: D Rammila & ME Manamela

ISSN: 1996-2193
Affiliations: LLB LLM (cum laude) LLD, Senior Lecturer, University of South Africa; BProc LLB LLM LLD, Professor, University of South Africa
Source: Stellenbosch Law Review, Volume 37 Issue 1, 2026, p. 1-21
https://doi.org/10.47348/SLR/2026/i1a1

Abstract

This article explores the exercise of the right to strike by seafarers, including the process regulating its exercise, its limitations, and relevant legislative developments. The article notes that the maritime labour environment differs from most land-based regulated sectors since ships serve as both the workplace and home of seafarers while at sea. It considers whether seafarers are bearers of constitutional labour rights, including the right to strike, fair labour practices, freedom of association and collective bargaining. Under international law, the right to strike is not expressly enumerated in any ILO treaty. However, ILO decisions and ICJ jurisprudence confirm that the right to strike is implied under ILO Conventions 87 and 98. It importantly notes that seafarers are workers and fall within the protective scope of the Constitution and international law. The article then explores the right to strike in the LRA and, in particular, the MSA, read together with the domesticated MLC in its Schedule 7. The MLC guarantees the rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining which, the article argues, impliedly include the right to strike, consistent with international jurisprudence. The MSA similarly shields the exercise of the right to strike, exempting participation in strike activity from various offences, provided that strikes are prohibited aboard vessels at sea. Furthermore, the MSA also appears to prohibit strikes aboard moored ships. The article argues that these limitations are logical and accordingly acceptable. The proposed revisions under the MS Bill, which clarify the direct application of the LRA and permit strikes only when ships are safely moored at a safe berth, are also considered. The article nevertheless questions whether permitting strikes aboard moored ships is warranted given the propensity for violence in South African strikes. Nevertheless, the article welcomes the Bill’s useful clarification on the matter.

Substantive Equality: Past, Present and Future

by | Oct 31, 2026 | SLR, SLR V37 I1

Substantive Equality: Past, Present and Future

Author: Catherine Albertyn

ISSN: 1996-2193
Affiliations: BA LLB (UCT) MPhil PhD (Cantab), Professor of Law and NRF SARChI Chair in Equality, Law and Social Justice School of Law, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg
Source: Stellenbosch Law Review, Volume 37 Issue 1, 2026, p. 22-55
https://doi.org/10.47348/SLR/2026/i1a2

Abstract

The aspiration of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, towards “the achievement of equality” remains an imperative for a democratic South Africa as it struggles with deeply entrenched patterns of colonialism, Apartheid, patriarchal inequality, and structural exclusion. This article focuses on the Constitution’s embrace of substantive equality and, particularly, on the Constitutional Court as an important site of struggle and deliberation over the meaning of equality and the use of the section 9 right to address South Africa’s deep and ongoing inequalities. It begins by restating the aspiration to substantive equality in the 1990s and sets out how its instantiation as a constitutional value and right should be interpreted in law. It then discusses the reach and limits of the Constitutional Court’s inclusive substantive equality jurisprudence under section 9(3), before interrogating what a more transformative substantive equality entails and its particular manifestations in gender equality jurisprudence. It argues that this jurisprudence points to more transformative pathways for section 9. Turning to section 9(2), it briefly examines positive measures as a particular site of contestation between formal and substantive equality, with both local and global reach. The article then maps the overall achievements and rare failures of section 9 and documents the possibilities of more transformative jurisprudential pathways. In conclusion, it argues that while the possibilities of change are primarily found in politics, litigation, and constitutional interpretations matter, especially if law and rights are seen as sites of struggle where ideas, such as equality and freedom, can be appropriated and reconstructed in different contexts. If the Constitution can be read to envisage transformative change, then the interpretations of equality should enable that, and there are clear building blocks in legal substantive equality that allow us to do so.

Advancing Social Justice in Labour Relations: A Conceptual and Jurisprudential Inquiry

by | Oct 31, 2026 | SLR, SLR V37 I1

Advancing Social Justice in Labour Relations: A Conceptual and Jurisprudential Inquiry

Author: Katlego Letlonkane

ISSN: 1996-2193
Affiliations: MA Critical Diversity Studies (Wits) LLM Labour Law (UCT) LLD (Stell), Attorney of the High Court of South Africa, Workplace culture and inclusion specialist, Stellenbosch University
Source: Stellenbosch Law Review, Volume 37 Issue 1, 2026, p. 56-80
https://doi.org/10.47348/SLR/2026/i1a3

Abstract

Social justice is integral to labour relations. A deepened and contextual engagement with the demands and dictates of social justice enables workplaces to move closer to the ideals of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, which entrenches everyone’s right to fair labour practices. More meaningful engagement with the concept of social justice also empowers workers, employers and other stakeholders to translate it into actual freedoms in the workplace. Yet, social justice remains under-theorised in the context of South African labour relations, leaving the concept somewhat elusive, thereby compromising the aims of fair labour practices and undermining the ends of justice. This contribution addresses this scholarly deficit by examining the theoretical foundations of social justice and its operationalisation in South African labour law jurisprudence. This examination reveals the limitations of the judicial process, where legal recognition does not always translate into the substantive freedoms and capabilities that workers require to build lives of value and dignity. In addressing this intangibility, the contribution argues for sustained intellectual and creative effort towards crafting a clear understanding of what social justice entails, not only in labour law jurisprudence but also in its lived impact on employees. The contribution seeks to offer conceptual clarity on social justice in labour relations in order to inform and encourage workplace practices and decisions aligned with the constitutional standard of fairness and equality.

Invisible Citizens: The Impact of Zimbabwe’s Birth Registration Laws on Paternal-Custody Children

by | Oct 31, 2026 | SLR, SLR V37 I1

Invisible Citizens: The Impact of Zimbabwe’s Birth Registration Laws on Paternal-Custody Children

Authors: Rosemary Farayi Masaire & Joseph Mesuwini

ISSN: 1996-2193
Affiliations: PhD (Entrepreneurship and Business Management) Department of Business Enterprise and Management, University of Zimbabwe; PhD (Technology Education) Science and Technology Division, University of the Witwatersrand
Source: Stellenbosch Law Review, Volume 37 Issue 1, 2026, p. 81-104
https://doi.org/10.47348/SLR/2026/i1a4

Abstract

Every child has the right to identity and belonging, yet Zimbabwean birth registration laws often hinder this right, particularly for children left in the custody of fathers or paternal relatives when mothers are untraceable. Current legal requirements mandate the involvement of a maternal relative bearing the mother’s surname to complete birth registration, leaving many such children unregistered, legally invisible and at heightened risk of statelessness. This contribution explores how these legal barriers violate children’s rights to identity and citizenship. Drawing on social exclusion theory, it highlights the marginalisation and heightened vulnerability of affected children and underscores the long-term social and legal consequences of non-registration. The chapter calls for urgent legislative and administrative reform to align Zimbabwe’s civil registration framework with constitutional and international child-rights standards. The findings aim to inform policy advocacy efforts, including submissions to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Civil Registration.

Misplaced Conflict? Rethinking Rule 32(3) of the Tax Court Rules after Baseline and Avin Lieberman Trust

by | Oct 31, 2026 | SLR, SLR V37 I1

Misplaced Conflict? Rethinking Rule 32(3) of the Tax Court Rules after Baseline and Avin Lieberman Trust

Authors: LA Magerman & C Thiart

ISSN: 1996-2193
Affiliations: BCom (Law) LLB (cum laude) MCom (Taxation), Senior Associate in Tax, Werksmans Attorneys, Graduate School of Accountancy, Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, Stellenbosch University; CA (SA) MAcc (Taxation) Tax specialist, Indevaldi Inc, Former lecturer, School of Accountancy, Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, Stellenbosch University
Source: Stellenbosch Law Review, Volume 37 Issue 1, 2026, p. 105-141
https://doi.org/10.47348/SLR/2026/i1a5

Abstract

In an era of increasing tax disputes, rule 32(3) – a provision governing when taxpayers may introduce new grounds of appeal under the rules promulgated in terms of section 103 of the South African Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 – raises important questions about whether it ensures the correct tax outcome. The rule’s prohibition seeks to balance procedural efficiency with the taxpayer’s right to fully dispute assessments issued by the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”). However, its practical application has drawn criticism due to inconsistent interpretations of the terms “part” and “amount” in the prohibition clause, and uncertainty over whether the prohibition should be read conjunctively or disjunctively. This contribution examines the conflicting interpretations adopted by the High Courts in Baseline Civil Contractors (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (a restrictive interpretation) and Avin Lieberman Trust v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (a less restrictive interpretation). These conflicting interpretations are evaluated against the backdrop of existing jurisprudence concerning the permissibility of introducing new grounds during the appeal process. Ultimately, this contribution argues in favour of a less restrictive interpretation. It proposes an interpretation of the terms “part” and “amount”, and clarifies whether the prohibition should be understood as a conjunctive or disjunctive test, drawing on constitutional principles and statutory interpretive doctrine.

Digital Platforms and Abuse of Dominance in South Africa

by | Oct 31, 2026 | SLR, SLR V37 I1

Digital Platforms and Abuse of Dominance in South Africa

Author: Yolani Ndamase

ISSN: 1996-2193
Affiliations: LLB LLM PhD, Senior Lecturer, North-West University
Source: Stellenbosch Law Review, Volume 37 Issue 1, 2026, p. 142-166
https://doi.org/10.47348/SLR/2026/i1a6

Abstract

The rise of digital platforms such as e-commerce marketplaces, social media networks, and app stores has transformed global markets by connecting diverse user groups while creating opportunities for innovation and growth. Yet, the distinct features of these platforms, namely multi-sidedness, network effects, and vertical integration, pose challenges for traditional competition law. Dominant platforms may exploit their position through self-preferencing, price parity clauses, and refusals to supply scarce digital services – practices that stifle innovation, restrict market access, and entrench their dominance. This contribution examines whether South Africa’s existing competition law framework is adequate to address digital platform abuse of dominance, or whether new regulatory instruments are required. It analyses the application of the Competition Act 89 of 1998 in digital contexts, with particular reference to the GovChat and Lottoland cases, which together form an emerging South African jurisprudence on scarce digital services. It further considers the findings of the Online Intermediation Platforms Market Inquiry and the Media and Digital Platforms Market Inquiry on self-preferencing, price parity clauses, and refusals to supply. Drawing on comparative developments in the European Union, the United States of America and Brazil, and engaging critically with the limitations of the consumer welfare standard in digital markets, the contribution advances policy recommendations for a hybrid regulatory framework for South Africa. The contribution asserts that South Africa can best address digital platform dominance by combining vigorous enforcement of the existing Competition Act with carefully targeted ex ante obligations for designated digital gatekeepers. This hybrid approach balances fairness and innovation, aligns with the Constitution’s public interest mandate, and draws selectively on international experience rather than transplanting any single foreign regime as is.