Caydavul and Another v Kamal Cape Town Iron and Steel Co (Pty) Ltd (JS619/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 223 (9 June 2025)

Caydavul and Another v Kamal Cape Town Iron and Steel Co (Pty) Ltd (JS619/23) [2025] ZALCJHB 223 (9 June 2025)

The plaintiffs remained employed by the defendant until their dismissal on 12 December 2023. The lay-off period was not lawfully extended by agreement, and the defendant conceded that no such agreement existed. The plaintiffs tendered their services throughout the relevant period, except during the business rescue period when they were paid. The defendant's argument that the second plaintiff's entitlement to remuneration was affected by the lapse of his work permit was rejected, as the employment contract was not rendered void and the defendant continued to treat him as an employee. The plaintiffs are entitled to unpaid remuneration for the period 26 May 2020 to 12 December 2023,...

Citation
[2025] ZALCJHB 223
Parties
Plaintiff: Serkan Caydavul; Plaintiff: Ibrahim Kinyas Gurcu; Defendant: Kamal Cape Town Iron and Steel Co (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 June 2025
Case Number
JS619/23
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim for unpaid remuneration is granted with costs.
Judges
Daniels
Legal Topics
Contractual Remuneration, Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Unpaid Wages, Business Rescue, Termination of Employment
Labour Law Civil Procedure Contractual Remuneration Basic Conditions of Employment Act Unpaid Wages Business Rescue Termination of Employment

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Serkan Caydavul

Plaintiff

Ibrahim Kinyas Gurcu

Plaintiff

Kamal Cape Town Iron and Steel Co (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to unpaid remuneration for the period 26 May 2020 to 12 December 2023, excluding the business rescue period.
  2. 2 Whether the lay-off period was lawfully extended by agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the second plaintiff's entitlement to remuneration was affected by the lapse of his work permit.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs remained employed by the defendant until their dismissal on 12 December 2023. The lay-off period was not lawfully extended by agreement, and the defendant conceded that no such agreement existed. The plaintiffs tendered their services throughout the relevant period, except during the business rescue period when they were paid. The defendant's argument that the second plaintiff's entitlement to remuneration was affected by the lapse of his work permit was rejected, as the employment contract was not rendered void and the defendant continued to treat him as an employee. The plaintiffs are entitled to unpaid remuneration for the period 26 May 2020 to 12 December 2023,...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim for unpaid remuneration is granted with costs.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the first plaintiff the sum of R1 676 426.76.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the second plaintiff the sum of R4 020 376.32.