Emetonjor v Kintetsu World Express SA (Pty) Ltd (C736/16) [2018] ZALCCT 30 (11 September 2018)

Emetonjor v Kintetsu World Express SA (Pty) Ltd (C736/16) [2018] ZALCCT 30 (11 September 2018)

The court found that the commission agreement was ambiguously drafted but, applying the principles of contractual interpretation, preferred the respondent's businesslike and commercially sensible interpretation. The phrase 'cost to company over a rolling 24 month period' meant that both the target and the cost to company should be calculated over the same 24 month period. The applicant's interpretation, which measured two years' income against one year's cost to company, was not plausible in the context of an incentive structure and generous salary. As the applicant did not meet the commission target under the correct interpretation, she was not entitled to any commission payment.

Citation
[2018] ZALCCT 30
Parties
Applicant: Kumarie Emetonjor; Respondent: Kintetsu World Express SA (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 September 2018
Case Number
C736/16
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
The applicant's claim for commission payments is dismissed.
Judges
A J Steenkamp
Legal Topics
Contractual Commission Dispute, Interpretation of Employment Contract, Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Remuneration Calculation
Labour Law Commercial and Corporate Contractual Commission Dispute Interpretation of Employment Contract Basic Conditions of Employment Act Remuneration Calculation

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kumarie Emetonjor

Applicant

Kintetsu World Express SA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to commission payments under the commission agreement.
  2. 2 How the phrase 'cost to company over a rolling 24 month period' should be interpreted in the commission agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant met the commission target as per the agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commission agreement was ambiguously drafted but, applying the principles of contractual interpretation, preferred the respondent's businesslike and commercially sensible interpretation. The phrase 'cost to company over a rolling 24 month period' meant that both the target and the cost to company should be calculated over the same 24 month period. The applicant's interpretation, which measured two years' income against one year's cost to company, was not plausible in the context of an incentive structure and generous salary. As the applicant did not meet the commission target under the correct interpretation, she was not entitled to any commission payment.

Court Disposition

The applicant's claim for commission payments is dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant's claim is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.