Gurendende and Another v Evalex Logistics (P185/12) [2017] ZALCPE 21 (11 November 2017)

Gurendende and Another v Evalex Logistics (P185/12) [2017] ZALCPE 21 (11 November 2017)

The applicants failed to discharge the onus of proving that they were dismissed by the respondent. The evidence established that neither applicant possessed the required documentation at the relevant time, and their allegations of dismissal were unsupported by the promised text messages, which were not produced. The respondent's version, supported by common cause facts, was found to be more probable. As the applicants did not prove dismissal, the Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the unfair dismissal dispute.

Citation
[2017] ZALCPE 21
Parties
Applicant: Abel Gurendende; Applicant: Stanford Marowa; Respondent: Evalex Logistics
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 November 2017
Case Number
P185/12
Procedural Posture
Unfair Dismissal Application / Trial
Outcome
Applicants' claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Judges
Lallie
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Jurisdiction, Onus of Proof, Fixed Term Contracts
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Jurisdiction Onus of Proof Fixed Term Contracts

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abel Gurendende

Applicant

Stanford Marowa

Applicant

Evalex Logistics

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Unfair Dismissal Application / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were dismissed by the respondent for operational requirements.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants discharged the onus of proving the existence of a dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute in the absence of proof of dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to discharge the onus of proving that they were dismissed by the respondent. The evidence established that neither applicant possessed the required documentation at the relevant time, and their allegations of dismissal were unsupported by the promised text messages, which were not produced. The respondent's version, supported by common cause facts, was found to be more probable. As the applicants did not prove dismissal, the Labour Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the unfair dismissal dispute.

Court Disposition

Applicants' claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • The applicants’ claim is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
  • No order is made as to costs.