Graham v Q-Kon (Pty) Ltd (J 891/03) [2004] ZALC 23 (27 February 2004)

Graham v Q-Kon (Pty) Ltd (J 891/03) [2004] ZALC 23 (27 February 2004)

The court found that the written employment agreement required any changes to be in writing and signed by both parties. No such written amendments were made to the Company Income Benefit Plan, and the respondent's management prerogative did not override the formal requirements of the contract. The respondent's denials regarding the amounts claimed were unsupported and did not constitute a bona fide dispute of fact. Accordingly, the applicant's claim for payment under the CIBP was upheld. On costs, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs occasioned by the Rule 11 application and the wasted hearing, as the applicant set the matter down despite knowing the respondent intended...

Citation
[2004] ZALC 23
Parties
Applicant: Riaan Graham; Respondent: Q-Kon (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 February 2004
Case Number
J 891/03
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Applicant's claim for payment under the Company Income Benefit Plan is upheld; costs orders are made as specified.
Judges
Semenya AJ
Legal Topics
Employment Contract, Variation of Contract, Remuneration Dispute, Company Income Benefit Plan, Costs Order
Labour Law Employment Contract Variation of Contract Remuneration Dispute Company Income Benefit Plan Costs Order

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Riaan Graham

Applicant

Q-Kon (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to payment under the Company Income Benefit Plan as per the written employment agreement.
  2. 2 Whether any valid amendment or review of the agreement occurred in accordance with its formal requirements.
  3. 3 Whether there exists a bona fide dispute of fact requiring oral evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the written employment agreement required any changes to be in writing and signed by both parties. No such written amendments were made to the Company Income Benefit Plan, and the respondent's management prerogative did not override the formal requirements of the contract. The respondent's denials regarding the amounts claimed were unsupported and did not constitute a bona fide dispute of fact. Accordingly, the applicant's claim for payment under the CIBP was upheld. On costs, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs occasioned by the Rule 11 application and the wasted hearing, as the applicant set the matter down despite knowing the respondent intended...

Court Disposition

Applicant's claim for payment under the Company Income Benefit Plan is upheld; costs orders are made as specified.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant an amount of R347,815.33.
  • Interest thereon at 15.5% per annum a temporae morae.