Hudson and Another v South African Airways SOC Limited (J545/13; J543/13) [2014] ZALCJHB 135; [2014] 11 BLLR 1132 (LC); (2014) 35 ILJ 3407 (LC) (24 April 2014)

Hudson and Another v South African Airways SOC Limited (J545/13; J543/13) [2014] ZALCJHB 135; [2014] 11 BLLR 1132 (LC); (2014) 35 ILJ 3407 (LC) (24 April 2014)

The court found that the contracts entered into between the applicants and the respondent were concluded in violation of the legislative and policy prescripts applicable to public entities, specifically the SAA Act and PFMA. The acting CEO, Kona, did not have the requisite authority to appoint the applicants, and the appointments were made without Board approval, in contravention of a standing moratorium, and outside the respondent's organogram and budget. The applicants, as former senior employees, ought to have known the appointments were unlawful. The contracts were therefore ultra vires and void ab initio. Estoppel cannot be used to validate such contracts, as this would be contrary...

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 135
Parties
Applicant: Peter Hudson; Applicant: Dirk Robert Bulder; Respondent: South African Airways SOC Limited
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 April 2014
Case Number
J545/13; J543/13
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment After Consolidated Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs. The respondent's decision to annul the contracts is lawful.
Judges
Walele
Legal Topics
Unlawful Termination, Fixed Term Contracts, Ostensible Authority, Ultra Vires Appointments, Estoppel, Public Entity Recruitment
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unlawful Termination Fixed Term Contracts Ostensible Authority Ultra Vires Appointments Estoppel Public Entity Recruitment

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

Applicant

Dirk Robert Bulder

Applicant

South African Airways SOC Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment After Consolidated Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the applicants' employment contracts was lawful.
  2. 2 Whether the contracts entered into between the applicants and the respondent were valid and enforceable.
  3. 3 Whether the acting CEO had actual or ostensible authority to appoint the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the contracts entered into between the applicants and the respondent were concluded in violation of the legislative and policy prescripts applicable to public entities, specifically the SAA Act and PFMA. The acting CEO, Kona, did not have the requisite authority to appoint the applicants, and the appointments were made without Board approval, in contravention of a standing moratorium, and outside the respondent's organogram and budget. The applicants, as former senior employees, ought to have known the appointments were unlawful. The contracts were therefore ultra vires and void ab initio. Estoppel cannot be used to validate such contracts, as this would be contrary...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs. The respondent's decision to annul the contracts is lawful.

Orders

  • The decision of the respondent to annul the contracts of the applicants is lawful.
  • The application of the applicants is dismissed with costs.