APL4802
Assignment 2
DUE: 21 APRIL 2026
, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA
APL4802 – APPLIED LABOUR LAW FOR FORENSIC AUDITORS
SEMESTER 1 | ASSIGNMENT 2 | 2026
TOTAL: 20 MARKS
1. INTRODUCTION
Mr B faces a fundamental evidentiary question: whether a transcript of a covertly made audio
recording can be admitted as evidence before the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and
Arbitration (CCMA) in unfair dismissal proceedings. The employer contends that the recording
was made without consent and in contravention of the Regulation of Interception of
Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act 70 of 2002
(RICA). This advice addresses the admissibility of the evidence by examining the relevant
statutory framework, the CCMA's approach to evidence, and the applicable case law.
2. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK: RICA AND THE INTERCEPTION OF
COMMUNICATIONS
RICA, which repealed the Interception and Monitoring Prohibition Act 127 of 1992, governs
the interception of communications in South Africa. Section 2 of RICA prohibits the intentional
interception of any communication in the course of its occurrence or transmission, except as
authorised by the Act. Section 1 defines 'interception' broadly to include the aural or other
acquisition of the contents of any communication by any means.
Section 4 of RICA is of central importance. It provides that a party to a communication may
record that communication without the consent of the other parties to the communication. This
is often referred to as the 'party exception.' Therefore, where Mr B was a party to the
disciplinary hearing proceedings while the recording device was running and he was present,
his recording of those portions of the proceedings would not constitute a contravention of
RICA. He was a participant in that communication.
However, the critical legal difficulty arises with respect to the portion of the recording made
during Mr B's absence from the room. When Mr B stepped out for a comfort break, he was no
longer a party to the communications that took place in the hearing room. The conversations
recorded in his absence constitute private communications between the other parties present,
in which Mr B had no participation whatsoever. The recording of those conversations without
the consent of any of the communicating parties would constitute an interception of a
communication as contemplated in section 2 of RICA, and would not fall within the section 4
party exception.
Assignment 2
DUE: 21 APRIL 2026
, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA
APL4802 – APPLIED LABOUR LAW FOR FORENSIC AUDITORS
SEMESTER 1 | ASSIGNMENT 2 | 2026
TOTAL: 20 MARKS
1. INTRODUCTION
Mr B faces a fundamental evidentiary question: whether a transcript of a covertly made audio
recording can be admitted as evidence before the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and
Arbitration (CCMA) in unfair dismissal proceedings. The employer contends that the recording
was made without consent and in contravention of the Regulation of Interception of
Communications and Provision of Communication-related Information Act 70 of 2002
(RICA). This advice addresses the admissibility of the evidence by examining the relevant
statutory framework, the CCMA's approach to evidence, and the applicable case law.
2. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK: RICA AND THE INTERCEPTION OF
COMMUNICATIONS
RICA, which repealed the Interception and Monitoring Prohibition Act 127 of 1992, governs
the interception of communications in South Africa. Section 2 of RICA prohibits the intentional
interception of any communication in the course of its occurrence or transmission, except as
authorised by the Act. Section 1 defines 'interception' broadly to include the aural or other
acquisition of the contents of any communication by any means.
Section 4 of RICA is of central importance. It provides that a party to a communication may
record that communication without the consent of the other parties to the communication. This
is often referred to as the 'party exception.' Therefore, where Mr B was a party to the
disciplinary hearing proceedings while the recording device was running and he was present,
his recording of those portions of the proceedings would not constitute a contravention of
RICA. He was a participant in that communication.
However, the critical legal difficulty arises with respect to the portion of the recording made
during Mr B's absence from the room. When Mr B stepped out for a comfort break, he was no
longer a party to the communications that took place in the hearing room. The conversations
recorded in his absence constitute private communications between the other parties present,
in which Mr B had no participation whatsoever. The recording of those conversations without
the consent of any of the communicating parties would constitute an interception of a
communication as contemplated in section 2 of RICA, and would not fall within the section 4
party exception.
