Amplats Management Services (Pty) Ltd. v van Jaarsveld (269/06) [2007] ZASCA 72; (2007) 28 ILJ 2669 (SCA) (31 May 2007)

Amplats Management Services (Pty) Ltd. v van Jaarsveld (269/06) [2007] ZASCA 72; (2007) 28 ILJ 2669 (SCA) (31 May 2007)

The majority held that the respondent failed to prove the existence of a binding contract of employment effective 1 January 1998. Menne had authority to arrange a secondment but not to bind the appellant to permanent employment, as all senior appointments required approval by the Administrative Committee (ADCO). The evidence and probabilities indicated that Menne did not purport to bind the appellant, and any assurances given were not sufficient to establish a contract or enforceable undertaking. The respondent remained on the payroll of Rustenburg Platinum Mines, and the subsequent formal appointment in 2000 followed proper procedures. The court found no basis for liability for damages...

Citation
[2007] ZASCA 72
Parties
Appellant: Amplats Management Services (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Auret Pritchard van Jaarsveld
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2007
Case Number
269/06
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Johannesburg High Court; Liability Determined First, Quantum Reserved
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Scott, Nugent, Jafta, Mlambo, Musi
Legal Topics
Contract of Employment, Pactum De Contrahendo, Ostensible Authority, Breach of Contract, Damages, Share Option Scheme
Labour Law Civil Procedure Contract of Employment Pactum De Contrahendo Ostensible Authority Breach of Contract Damages Share Option Scheme

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

Amplats Management Services (Pty) Limited

Appellant

Auret Pritchard van Jaarsveld

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Johannesburg High Court; Liability Determined First, Quantum Reserved

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding contract of employment was concluded between the respondent and the appellant as of 1 January 1998.
  2. 2 Whether Menne had authority to bind the appellant to a contract of employment with the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant is liable for damages arising from the delay in formalising the respondent's appointment.

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the respondent failed to prove the existence of a binding contract of employment effective 1 January 1998. Menne had authority to arrange a secondment but not to bind the appellant to permanent employment, as all senior appointments required approval by the Administrative Committee (ADCO). The evidence and probabilities indicated that Menne did not purport to bind the appellant, and any assurances given were not sufficient to establish a contract or enforceable undertaking. The respondent remained on the payroll of Rustenburg Platinum Mines, and the subsequent formal appointment in 2000 followed proper procedures. The court found no basis for liability for damages...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with: 'The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.'