Hudson and Another v SAA SOC Ltd (JA 84/2014) [2015] ZALAC 96 (24 June 2015)

Hudson and Another v SAA SOC Ltd (JA 84/2014) [2015] ZALAC 96 (24 June 2015)

The appeal was dismissed because the dispute of facts regarding the authority of the Acting CEO and the validity of the appointments could not be resolved on the papers in application proceedings. The respondent raised genuine and weighty factual disputes, substantiated by affidavits, which the appellants failed to address through oral evidence. The principles of Plascon-Evans dictate that, in the absence of a referral to oral evidence, the respondent's version prevails. The appellants' reliance on the Turquand rule was misplaced as the necessary internal formalities and authority were lacking. The Labour Court's dismissal of the application was upheld, albeit for different reasons, as...

Citation
[2015] ZALAC 96
Parties
Appellant: Peter Hudson; Appellant: Dirk Robert Bulder; Respondent: South African Airways SOC Limited
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 June 2015
Case Number
JA 84/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Davis, Ndlovu, Mngqibisa-Thusi
Legal Topics
Authority to Contract, Fixed Term Employment, Turquand Rule, Moratorium on Appointments, Motion Proceedings, Dispute of Facts
Labour Law Civil Procedure Authority to Contract Fixed Term Employment Turquand Rule Moratorium on Appointments Motion Proceedings Dispute of Facts

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

Parties

Peter Hudson

Appellant

Dirk Robert Bulder

Appellant

South African Airways SOC Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Acting CEO of the respondent had authority to conclude fixed term employment contracts with the appellants.
  2. 2 Whether the appointments of the appellants contravened the respondent's internal policies and a standing moratorium on appointments.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants could rely on the Turquand rule to enforce the contracts.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the dispute of facts regarding the authority of the Acting CEO and the validity of the appointments could not be resolved on the papers in application proceedings. The respondent raised genuine and weighty factual disputes, substantiated by affidavits, which the appellants failed to address through oral evidence. The principles of Plascon-Evans dictate that, in the absence of a referral to oral evidence, the respondent's version prevails. The appellants' reliance on the Turquand rule was misplaced as the necessary internal formalities and authority were lacking. The Labour Court's dismissal of the application was upheld, albeit for different reasons, as...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.