Kitsopoulos v Cherangani Trade & Invest 113 (Pty) Ltd (60/2010) [2011] ZAFSHC 127 (25 August 2011)

Kitsopoulos v Cherangani Trade & Invest 113 (Pty) Ltd (60/2010) [2011] ZAFSHC 127 (25 August 2011)

The court found that the plaintiff was recruited with the promise of a 70/30 commission split in her favour for sales of any property out of hand, including commercial properties. The defendant's evidence was inconsistent and unreliable, particularly regarding the terms of the employment contract and commission structure. The absence of testimony from Barnard, a key figure in the recruitment and commission arrangements, led to an adverse inference against the defendant. The court further held that Mokoena was not entitled to share in the commission as he did not possess a valid Fidelity Fund Certificate at the time he allegedly sourced the property, and any mandate given to him was...

Citation
[2011] ZAFSHC 127
Parties
Plaintiff: Mrs Haralambou Kitsopoulos; Defendant: Cherangani Trade & Invest 113 (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 August 2011
Case Number
60/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Judges
L J Lekale
Legal Topics
Estate Agency Affairs Act, Commission Dispute, Oral Employment Contract, Remuneration Entitlement
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Estate Agency Affairs Act Commission Dispute Oral Employment Contract Remuneration Entitlement

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

Parties

Mrs Haralambou Kitsopoulos

Plaintiff

Cherangani Trade & Invest 113 (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the oral employment agreement entitled the plaintiff to a 70/30 commission split in her favour on the sale of commercial property out of hand.
  2. 2 Whether Sechaba Mokoena was a listing agent for the property and entitled to share in the commission payable to the plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether Mokoena was legally entitled to remuneration as an estate agent without a valid Fidelity Fund Certificate at the relevant time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was recruited with the promise of a 70/30 commission split in her favour for sales of any property out of hand, including commercial properties. The defendant's evidence was inconsistent and unreliable, particularly regarding the terms of the employment contract and commission structure. The absence of testimony from Barnard, a key figure in the recruitment and commission arrangements, led to an adverse inference against the defendant. The court further held that Mokoena was not entitled to share in the commission as he did not possess a valid Fidelity Fund Certificate at the time he allegedly sourced the property, and any mandate given to him was...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff R275,000.00 together with interest at 15.5% per annum on R350,000.00 from 23 October 2009 to 12 March 2010, and further interest on R275,000.00 from 12 March 2010 to date of final payment.
  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff's costs.