Retirement and Dismissal: What Employees Need to Know About Their Rights at Work

 Introduction: The Law on Dismissals Based on Age

Under South African labour law, dismissing someone just because of their age is automatically unfair—unless they have reached the agreed or normal retirement age for their job. This protection comes from section 187(1)(f) read with section 187(2)(b) of the Labour Relations Act (LRA).

But what if you've reached retirement age and your employer lets you keep working for a while—can they then suddenly force you to retire later on?

This tricky question has come up more often as people stay healthy and want to work longer. Recently, the Constitutional Court considered this issue in two cases. Unfortunately, the Court couldn’t agree on one clear answer, meaning the law is still not settled.

Key Legal Principles

• Dismissal based solely on age is unfair unless you’ve reached your normal or agreed retirement age.
• The “normal” retirement age could be:
• Written in your contract,
• Set out in company policy,
• Or implied from company practice.
• If there is no agreed or normal retirement age, your employer can’t just pick an age and force you to retire.

Recent Case Law

1. MISA obo Landman v Great South Autobody

Facts:

• Mr. Landman worked beyond his agreed retirement age of 60.
• The employer dismissed him almost a year later, citing age as the reason.

Arguments:

• Landman said a new employment relationship started after he turned 60 and that the employer couldn’t rely on the old retirement age anymore.

Decision:

• The Labour Appeal Court said no new contract was created.
• Once you’ve reached the agreed retirement age, the employer can retire you at any time after that, provided it's not for a hidden reason (like punishing you for something else).

2. Solidarity obo Strydom v SITA

Facts:

• Employees worked past their normal retirement age and were later told to retire.

Decision:

• The Labour Court agreed with the employer: once someone passes the retirement age, the employer can choose to retire them, as long as that age was agreed or normal for the job.

3. Constitutional Court Ruling

In CCT 298/22 and CCT 346/22, the Constitutional Court considered whether an employer may lawfully dismiss an employee for age after allowing them to work beyond the agreed or normal retirement age. The two cases—MISA & Landman v Great South Autobody and Solidarity obo Strydom & Others v SITA—involved employees who reached the retirement age of 60 but were only dismissed months or years later.

The key legal issue was the interpretation of section 187(2)(b) of the Labour Relations Act (LRA), which allows dismissal for age if the employee "has reached" the normal or agreed retirement age. The Court issued three conflicting judgments:

• Zondo CJ held that dismissal is only fair if it occurs on the date the employee reaches retirement age, unless otherwise agreed. Later dismissals are automatically unfair and open to abuse.
• Van Zyl AJ said employers have a limited window after retirement age to exercise their right to terminate. If they wait too long, they may lose that right.
• Rogers J ruled that employers may fairly dismiss employees at any time after reaching retirement age, provided reasonable notice is given.

There was no majority on the legal interpretation, so the law remains unsettled. However, the Court agreed on the outcomes:

• In Landman, the appeal was dismissed; the dismissal was not automatically unfair.
• In Solidarity, the appeal was upheld; the dismissals were unfair as the employer had agreed employees could work until 67. Each employee was awarded 24 months’ compensation, with no costs order.

Until a clear majority emerges, employers and employees should proceed cautiously when continuing employment past retirement age. Clarity in employment contracts and proactive communication remain essential.

Advice to Employees

1. Check Your Contract

• Is your retirement age clearly stated?
• If not, ask your employer or HR to clarify in writing.

2. If You Work Beyond Retirement Age

• Your employer can still ask you to retire later, but:
• They must give reasonable notice.
• They must not use age to hide another reason (e.g. discrimination or retrenchment).

3. Be Proactive

• If you want to keep working after your retirement age, discuss it early with your employer.
• Try to agree on a new retirement date or contract terms to avoid confusion.

4. If You’re Transferred to a New Employer

• Your existing contract and retirement terms still apply unless changed in writing.

Conclusion

The law says you cannot be dismissed just because you’re older—unless you’ve reached your agreed or normal retirement age. Even then, if you work beyond that age, your employer can still retire you—but they must act fairly and give reasonable notice.

Because the Constitutional Court didn’t settle the issue once and for all, it's best to get clarity in writing, and if in doubt, seek legal advice.

 

Understanding the Accrual System: CPI Adjustments & Contractual Exclusions

 

Marriages Under the Accrual System

The Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984 (the Act) provides that when a couple signs an antenuptial contract that excludes community of property and community of profit and loss, their marriage automatically follows the accrual system —unless they specifically agree to exclude it.

Under the accrual system, when the marriage ends (either through divorce or the death of a spouse), the spouse whose estate grew less during the marriage (or their estate if they have passed away) has a right to claim half of the difference in growth between the two estates.

The "accrual" of an estate is simply the increase in its net value from the start of the marriage to the time it ends.

The Act states that when calculating the starting value of a spouse’s estate at the time of marriage, adjustments must be made to account for inflation. This means that any changes in the value of money between the start and end of the marriage (whether due to divorce or death) are considered. To measure this change, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) — as published in the Government Gazette — is used as proof of how money’s value has shifted. This ensures that the original estate value is fairly adjusted to reflect its real worth at the time of dissolution.

While the CPI is commonly used in practice to adjust commencement values for inflation, parties can contract out of using CPI by specifying alternative methods in their antenuptial contract.

Use of CPI in Practice

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is used to account for inflation when calculating how much a spouse's estate was worth at the time of marriage. To do this, the CPI at the time of divorce (or death) is divided by the CPI at the time of marriage. The result is used to adjust the starting estate value so it reflects what it would be worth in today's money. This ensures that each spouse's starting wealth is fairly measured in a way that considers changes in the cost of living over time.

Here’s a breakdown:

1. Net Commencement Value: This is the net value of each spouse’s estate at the beginning of the marriage, as declared in the antenuptial contract. It includes all assets minus liabilities.
2. Weighted Consumer Price Index (CPI): The CPI is a measure of inflation. To adjust the commencement value, you use the CPI to reflect how much the value of money has changed since the marriage began.
3. Adjustment Process:
• Identify the CPI at the time of marriage and at the time of divorce or death.
• Calculate the adjustment factor by dividing the current CPI by the CPI at the time of marriage.
• Multiply the commencement value by this adjustment factor to get the adjusted commencement value.

Example:

• CPI at Marriage (2000): 45.975
• CPI at Divorce (2010): 109.26
• Commencement Value: R100,000

Adjustment Factor: 109.26 / 45.975 = 2.37

Adjusted Commencement Value: R100,000 × 2.37 = R237,520

This adjusted value is then used to calculate the accrual, which is the increase in the value of each spouse’s estate during the marriage. The accrual is shared equally between the spouses upon divorce or death.

This process ensures that the initial values are adjusted for inflation, providing a fairer basis for calculating the accrual and dividing assets.

Contracting Out of Using CPI

Parties can include provisions in their antenuptial contract to use alternative methods for adjusting commencement values instead of the Consumer Price Index, such as market value, to account for inflation or other factors affecting asset values. This flexibility allows couples to structure their marital property regime to suit their specific needs and financial circumstances.

The couple (or their executors) can agree in writing on how to value their assets at the time of divorce or death. If they cannot agree, a sworn appraiser or valuer will assess the estates following estate valuation practices. If they cannot decide on an appraiser, they can agree that the Chairman of the Arbitration Foundation of Southern Africa will appoint one, and their valuation will be final unless there is a clear mistake.

Personal Injury Claims: Understanding Duty of Care, Negligence, and Contributory Negligence in Public Liability Cases

A discussion of Stephens v Minister of Police (21884/2017) [2025] ZAWCHC 72 (28 February 2025).

Introduction to Legal Principles

In personal injury cases, several legal principles come into play, including duty of care, negligence, and contributory negligence. The principle of duty of care requires entities to ensure that their premises are safe for public use. Negligence occurs when this duty is breached, resulting in harm. Contributory negligence arises when the injured party's actions contribute to their own harm.

Case Law: Stephens v Minister of Police

Facts of the Case

The case of Stephens v Minister of Police involved an 80-year-old man who fell from an unsecured landing at a police station. He had been directed by a police officer to wash his hands at a tap located outside. The plaintiff sustained injuries, including damage to his knee and facial lacerations. He claimed that the police officers failed to ensure the premises were safe for public use.

Court's Decision

The court found that the Minister of Police had a duty of care to ensure the safety of the premises. However, this duty was breached due to the absence of a railing and warning signs on the landing. Despite this, the court also determined that the plaintiff was 20% contributorily negligent for failing to look where he was going and not using the steps provided.

Key points from the court's decision include:

• Breach of Duty of Care: The absence of a railing and warning signs constituted negligence on the part of the defendant.
• Contributory Negligence: The plaintiff's failure to exercise caution and look where he was going contributed to his injuries.
• Apportionment of Liability: The Minister of Police was held liable for 80% of the plaintiff's damages, while the plaintiff was deemed 20% responsible.

Conclusion

The judgment in Stephens v Minister of Police highlights the importance of maintaining safe premises and the need for individuals to exercise reasonable care for their own safety. It emphasizes that entities must conduct thorough risk assessments and implement safety measures, while also considering the actions of the claimant when evaluating personal injury claims.

 

South African Citizenship Law: Court Rules in Favor of Stateless Child Born to Refugee Parents

A discussion of M.M.E and Others v Director General, Department of Home Affairs and Another (21970/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 202 (12 March 2025)

Introduction to Legal Principles

The South African legal system, particularly the South African Citizenship Act of 1995, outlines how citizenship is acquired. A key principle is that a child born in South Africa can become a citizen if one of their parents is a South African citizen at the time of birth. However, changes to the law have created complexities for children born to non-citizen parents. This article explores a recent court case involving a child born to refugee parents, highlighting the legal challenges and the court's decision to ensure the child's right to citizenship.

Legal Framework for Citizenship

• Citizenship by Birth: Before 2013, a child born in South Africa could become a citizen if one of their parents had permanent residence. After 2013, citizenship is granted if one parent is a South African citizen at the time of birth.
• Statelessness: The South African Citizenship Act aims to prevent statelessness by providing citizenship to children born in the country who do not have another nationality.
• Refugee Status: Refugees in South Africa face unique challenges in obtaining citizenship for their children, as they cannot easily access services from their country of origin without risking their refugee status.

Case Law: Facts and Court Decision

Background

The case involves a family of refugees from Rwanda living in South Africa. The parents, who are legally recognized refugees, have two daughters. The eldest daughter was born before the 2013 changes to the Citizenship Act and automatically became a South African citizen. However, the youngest daughter, born in 2015, did not qualify for automatic citizenship due to the new requirements.

The Challenge

• Statelessness: The youngest child was stateless because she did not qualify for South African citizenship and could not easily obtain Rwandan citizenship due to her parents' refugee status.
• Application for Citizenship: The parents applied for South African citizenship for their youngest child, but the application was refused by the Department of Home Affairs, citing that granting citizenship would be contrary to the Citizenship Act.

Court Decision

The High Court of South Africa reviewed the decision and ruled in favour of the applicants. The court declared the Department's refusal unlawful and ordered that the child be recognized as a South African citizen by birth under Section 2(2) of the Citizenship Act. This section ensures that a child born in South Africa who does not have the citizenship of any other country can become a South African citizen if their birth is registered in accordance with South African law.

Key Points of the Decision

• Prevention of Statelessness: The court emphasized the importance of preventing statelessness, especially for children, as it is constitutionally directed that every child should have a nationality from birth.
• Best Interests of the Child: The court prioritized the best interests of the child, noting that procedural technicalities should not override justice.
• Refugee Status Considerations: The court acknowledged the difficulties faced by refugees in accessing services from their country of origin, which would imperil their status and that of their family.

Conclusion

The court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that children have a nationality from birth, as mandated by constitutional principles. It also underscores the challenges faced by refugee families in navigating citizenship laws. The ruling provides a significant precedent for similar cases, emphasizing the need to balance legal technicalities with the best interests of the child and the prevention of statelessness.

 

Understanding Universal Partnerships in South African Law: Key Legal Principles and Landmark Cases

Introduction

A universal partnership is a legal arrangement in South African law, derived from Roman Dutch principles, where individuals share ownership of assets under specific conditions. These partnerships can exist in both business and personal relationships, such as cohabitation, and are commonly disputed in cases involving asset division after separation.

People allege the existence of a universal partnership for several reasons, primarily to claim rights over shared assets and financial contributions after a relationship or business partnership ends. The motive often involves securing financial benefits, ensuring fair distribution of wealth accumulated during the relationship, or avoiding economic disadvantage after a separation. Establishing a universal partnership can help one partner gain access to shared property, claim compensation for non-financial contributions (such as homemaking), or challenge an unfair asset distribution.

To prove a universal partnership, certain legal requirements must be met, including contribution by each party, mutual benefit, a profit motive, and a legitimate agreement. This article explores these principles, examines key case law, and discusses how courts determine the existence of a universal partnership.

Key Legal Principles

For a universal partnership to exist, the following elements must be proven:

Contribution by Each Partner. Each partner must contribute in some form, including:

• Financial contributions (money or investments)
• Labour or services
• Skills and expertise
• Domestic responsibilities (e.g., homemaking or childcare)

Mutual Benefit

The partnership must be established for the joint benefit of both parties, including shared profits and losses.

Profit Motive

While commercial partnerships require a clear profit motive, non-commercial partnerships (e.g., cohabitation) may involve shared financial and social benefits.

Legitimate Agreement

The partnership agreement can be either:

·        Express: Clearly stated in writing or verbally.

·        Tacit: Implied through conduct, where actions suggest an intention to form a partnership.

Types of Universal Partnerships

South African law distinguishes between two types:

Societas Universorum Bonorum

·        All present and future property is pooled into the partnership.

·        Common in domestic relationships.

Societas Universorum Quae Ex Quaestu Veniunt

Limited to property acquired through commercial activities during the partnership.

Key Case Law

1 Mühlmann v Mühlmann (1984)

• Facts: Spouses married out of community of property claimed a universal partnership over a jointly operated business.
• Decision: The court recognized the partnership based on their joint contributions and shared profits.

2 Butters v Mncora (2012)

• Facts: A long-term cohabiting couple pooled resources for mutual benefit. The plaintiff contributed financially, while the defendant provided domestic services.
• Decision: The court found a tacit universal partnership existed because both parties contributed towards shared assets and benefits.

3. Ponelat v Schrepfer (2012)

• Facts: A cohabiting couple disputed asset division after separation.
• Decision: The court held that a universal partnership exists if the essential elements (contribution, mutual benefit, profit motive) are met, regardless of marital status.

4. R.D.M v M.D.K (2025)

• Facts: The plaintiff, R.D.M., sought a court order declaring a universal partnership with M.D.K. valid and claimed entitlement to shared assets. M.D.K. denied the existence of a partnership, arguing the plaintiff’s financial contributions were gifts.
• Decision: The court dismissed the claim due to insufficient evidence of asset pooling and a shared profit motive, reinforcing that financial contributions alone do not establish a universal partnership.

Proving a Universal Partnership

To successfully claim a universal partnership, a party must provide:

• Evidence of contributions by both partners (financial, labour, or skills).
• Conduct demonstrating an agreement to pool resources for mutual benefit.
• A clear intention to share profits or benefits arising from their relationship.

The burden of proof lies with the claimant, and tacit agreements require strong supporting evidence.

Limitations and Challenges

• Cohabitation alone does not establish a universal partnership; there must be evidence of intent beyond merely sharing a home or expenses.
• Certain assets, such as pensions, cannot be shared under universal partnerships due to statutory restrictions (e.g., Pension Funds Act).
• Tacit agreements require clear evidence, as conduct can be open to multiple interpretations.

Conclusion

A universal partnership provides a legal framework for recognizing shared contributions in relationships that do not fall under traditional marriage or civil unions. However, proving such a partnership requires meeting strict legal criteria, including contribution, mutual benefit, profit motive, and a legitimate agreement. Courts scrutinize these elements carefully to distinguish true partnerships from mere cohabitation or casual financial arrangements.