Legal insights

Family Law

October 2026

The Divorce Act 70 of 1979 remains the primary legislative framework governing divorce in South Africa, but its application continues to evolve through the courts. Two areas in particular have seen significant judicial attention in recent years: the forfeiture of benefits and the division of pension interests.

Forfeiture of benefits arises where a court finds that one spouse would be unduly benefited by the dissolution of the marriage relative to the other. Courts have increasingly scrutinised the duration of the marriage, the circumstances leading to the breakdown, and the respective contributions of each party — both financial and non-financial — when making these determinations.

The division of pension interests has become one of the most contested aspects of divorce proceedings. Under section 7(8) of the Divorce Act, read together with the Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956, a non-member spouse is entitled to claim a portion of the member spouse's pension interest as at the date of divorce. The calculation of this interest, and the timing of its payment, has been the subject of considerable litigation.

Practically speaking, parties going through a divorce should ensure that all pension and provident fund interests are properly disclosed and valued during the settlement process. Failure to do so can result in a settlement agreement that does not accurately reflect the true value of the marital estate, with limited recourse after the fact.

If you are facing divorce proceedings or have questions about your rights regarding pension interests or the division of assets, we recommend seeking legal advice early. The decisions made at the outset of divorce proceedings can have lasting financial consequences.

Labour Law

September 2026

The right not to be unfairly dismissed is one of the most fundamental protections afforded to employees under South African labour law. Section 185 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA) enshrines this right, and the CCMA serves as the primary forum for resolving disputes arising from alleged unfair dismissals.

A dismissal may be found to be unfair on two grounds: substantive unfairness and procedural unfairness. Substantive fairness requires that there was a valid reason for the dismissal — whether related to the employee's conduct, capacity, or the operational requirements of the employer. Procedural fairness requires that the employer followed a fair process before effecting the dismissal.

In cases of misconduct, the employer is required to conduct a disciplinary hearing before dismissing an employee. The employee must be informed of the charges against them, given a reasonable opportunity to prepare a response, and allowed to be represented by a fellow employee or trade union representative. Failure to follow this process can render an otherwise substantively fair dismissal procedurally unfair.

An employee who believes they have been unfairly dismissed must refer the dispute to the CCMA within 30 days of the date of dismissal, or within 30 days of the employer making a final decision to dismiss. This time limit is strictly applied, and late referrals require condonation — which is not automatically granted.

Both employers and employees benefit from understanding these requirements before a dispute arises. Employers should ensure that their disciplinary procedures are properly documented and consistently applied. Employees should be aware of their rights and the time limits that apply. If you are involved in a dismissal dispute, whether as employer or employee, legal advice at an early stage can make a material difference to the outcome.

Criminal Law

August 2026

An arrest is one of the most stressful experiences a person can face. In the confusion and fear of the moment, many people do not know what rights they have — or they know they have rights but are unsure how to assert them. Section 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 sets out these rights clearly, and they apply to every person arrested in South Africa, regardless of the alleged offence.

Upon arrest, you have the right to remain silent. You are not obliged to answer any questions put to you by the police, other than to provide your name and address. Anything you say can be used as evidence against you in subsequent proceedings. The right to silence is not an admission of guilt — it is a constitutional protection, and you are entitled to exercise it without explanation.

You also have the right to be informed promptly of the reason for your arrest and of your right to remain silent. The arresting officer is required to communicate this to you in a language you understand. If this does not happen, it does not automatically invalidate the arrest, but it is a factor that your attorney can raise in subsequent proceedings.

Critically, you have the right to choose and consult with a legal practitioner, and to be informed of this right promptly. If you cannot afford a legal practitioner, one can be assigned to you by the state. You should ask to speak to your attorney before answering any questions. This right applies from the moment of arrest — not only once you appear in court.

You must be brought before a court as soon as reasonably possible, and not later than 48 hours after your arrest, or the first court day after the expiry of that period. At that appearance, the question of bail will be addressed. The bail hearing is a critical stage of the proceedings, and having legal representation at this point can significantly affect the outcome.

If you or someone you know has been arrested, contact an attorney immediately. Do not wait until the first court appearance. The decisions made in the hours following an arrest can have lasting consequences for the outcome of the case.