Bophela v Insam Mining & Financial Close Corporation (J36/98) [2000] ZALC 35 (25 May 2000)

Bophela v Insam Mining & Financial Close Corporation (J36/98) [2000] ZALC 35 (25 May 2000)

The court found that the settlement agreement was too vague to be enforced as an order of court. The agreement did not specify the amount payable, and was merely an undertaking to act in a certain manner. The applicant failed to quantify the alleged outstanding amount, and the respondent had already paid R1,197.00, which it considered to be the full settlement. The court held that a writ could not be issued on the basis of such an agreement, and it was not competent for the court to vary the agreement or determine the amount due based on evidence from the bar. The agreement was declared void for vagueness and incapable of enforcement.

Citation
[2000] ZALC 35
Parties
Applicant: Givenson Bophela; Respondent: Insam Mining & Financial Close Corporation
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 May 2000
Case Number
J36/98
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Make Settlement Agreement an Order of Court
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Lyster
Legal Topics
Settlement Agreement Enforcement, Section 158 1 C, Vagueness of Contract, Quantification of Claim
Labour Law Civil Procedure Settlement Agreement Enforcement Section 158 1 C Vagueness of Contract Quantification of Claim

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Givenson Bophela

Applicant

Insam Mining & Financial Close Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Make Settlement Agreement an Order of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement agreement is sufficiently certain to be made an order of court.
  2. 2 Whether the agreement is enforceable under section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to further payment beyond what was already paid.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the settlement agreement was too vague to be enforced as an order of court. The agreement did not specify the amount payable, and was merely an undertaking to act in a certain manner. The applicant failed to quantify the alleged outstanding amount, and the respondent had already paid R1,197.00, which it considered to be the full settlement. The court held that a writ could not be issued on the basis of such an agreement, and it was not competent for the court to vary the agreement or determine the amount due based on evidence from the bar. The agreement was declared void for vagueness and incapable of enforcement.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to make the settlement agreement an order of court is dismissed.