Kgaditse v Pep Stores (Pty) Limited (J1527/98) [1998] ZALC 84 (23 October 1998)

Kgaditse v Pep Stores (Pty) Limited (J1527/98) [1998] ZALC 84 (23 October 1998)

The court found that the settlement agreement contained ongoing obligations, specifically the re-employment of the applicant on a casual basis, which had not been fully discharged. The court held that it is not necessary for the applicant to show non-compliance or a reasonable apprehension of future non-compliance before the court exercises its discretion to make the agreement an order of court. The purpose of making the agreement an order of court is to render it enforceable and give it sufficient weight, especially where obligations are ongoing. The application was granted as the respondent's obligations under clause 3 were not yet fully discharged.

Citation
[1998] ZALC 84
Parties
Applicant: Mary Kgaditse; Respondent: Pep Stores (Pty) Limited
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 October 1998
Case Number
J1527/98
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Make Settlement Agreement an Order of Court
Outcome
Application granted; settlement agreement made an order of court.
Judges
Seady
Legal Topics
Settlement Agreement, Section 158 1 C Application, Unfair Dismissal, Ccma Award Enforcement
Labour Law Settlement Agreement Section 158 1 C Application Unfair Dismissal Ccma Award Enforcement

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Kgaditse

Applicant

Pep Stores (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Make Settlement Agreement an Order of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement agreement reached under the auspices of the CCMA should be made an order of court under section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has complied with all obligations under the settlement agreement, particularly the ongoing obligation to re-employ the applicant on a casual basis.
  3. 3 Whether it is necessary for the applicant to show non-compliance or reasonable apprehension of future non-compliance before the court exercises its discretion.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the settlement agreement contained ongoing obligations, specifically the re-employment of the applicant on a casual basis, which had not been fully discharged. The court held that it is not necessary for the applicant to show non-compliance or a reasonable apprehension of future non-compliance before the court exercises its discretion to make the agreement an order of court. The purpose of making the agreement an order of court is to render it enforceable and give it sufficient weight, especially where obligations are ongoing. The application was granted as the respondent's obligations under clause 3 were not yet fully discharged.

Court Disposition

Application granted; settlement agreement made an order of court.

Orders

  • The settlement agreement dated 27 November 1997 between the applicant and respondent is made an order of court.
  • No order as to costs.