Achireko-Asubonten v Palabora Mining Company Ltd (JS786/11A) [2014] ZALCJHB 438 (21 August 2014)

Achireko-Asubonten v Palabora Mining Company Ltd (JS786/11A) [2014] ZALCJHB 438 (21 August 2014)

The court found that, even assuming joint employment by both Rio Tinto and the respondent, the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities his entitlement to the claimed STIP bonus for 2009, as there was insufficient evidence regarding the correct performance rating. The respondent's obligations under the contract were limited to those expressly stipulated, and the travel provision for relocation benefits required the applicant to exercise his right within a reasonable period after termination. The applicant did not claim the benefit from the respondent within such a period, and thus his claim for relocation costs also failed. The respondent's failure to provide adequate...

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 438
Parties
Applicant: Charles Achireko-Asubonten; Respondent: Palabora Mining Company Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 August 2014
Case Number
JS786/11A
Procedural Posture
Civil Judgment / Trial
Outcome
The applicant's claims for payment of an alleged shortfall in his 2009 STIP bonus and for a declarator that the respondent is liable for travel and removal costs are dismissed.
Judges
Lagrange
Legal Topics
Joint Employment, Contractual Entitlement, Short Term Incentive Plan, Relocation Benefits, Onus of Proof
Labour Law Civil Procedure Joint Employment Contractual Entitlement Short Term Incentive Plan Relocation Benefits Onus of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Achireko-Asubonten

Applicant

Palabora Mining Company Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Judgment / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was jointly employed by the respondent and Rio Tinto Services Inc.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is liable for payment of the alleged shortfall in the applicant's 2009 STIP bonus.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is liable for travel and removal costs for the applicant and his family upon termination of employment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, even assuming joint employment by both Rio Tinto and the respondent, the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities his entitlement to the claimed STIP bonus for 2009, as there was insufficient evidence regarding the correct performance rating. The respondent's obligations under the contract were limited to those expressly stipulated, and the travel provision for relocation benefits required the applicant to exercise his right within a reasonable period after termination. The applicant did not claim the benefit from the respondent within such a period, and thus his claim for relocation costs also failed. The respondent's failure to provide adequate...

Court Disposition

The applicant's claims for payment of an alleged shortfall in his 2009 STIP bonus and for a declarator that the respondent is liable for travel and removal costs are dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant's claims for payment of the alleged shortfall in his 2009 STIP bonus and for a declarator regarding travel and removal costs are dismissed.
  • No order is made as to costs.