Loyiso and Others v Amethst (Pty) Ltd and Others (JS961/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 460 (10 March 2015)

Loyiso and Others v Amethst (Pty) Ltd and Others (JS961/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 460 (10 March 2015)

The applicants failed to establish a contractual relationship with the first respondent, as their employment contracts were concluded with the third respondent. The facts did not support the contention that the first respondent was a party to the employment contracts or that the corporate veil of the third respondent should be pierced. There was no evidence of fraud, dishonesty, or improper conduct justifying the lifting of the corporate veil. Even if the veil were lifted, it would not make the first respondent a party to the contract. Consequently, the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the applicants' claim for breach of contract against the first respondent.

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 460
Parties
Applicant: Loyiso and 28 Others; Applicant: Motingwa Anna Molamu; Respondent: Amethst (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Etquiton Corporation Investment; Respondent: Equiton Health Solutions; Respondent: Baoki Consortium
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 March 2015
Case Number
JS961/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Jurisdictional Challenge / Final Judgment After Argument on Papers
Outcome
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Costs awarded to the first respondent.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Contractual Employment Relationship, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Piercing Corporate Veil, Fixed Term Contracts, Joint and Several Liability
Labour Law Civil Procedure Contractual Employment Relationship Jurisdiction of Labour Court Piercing Corporate Veil Fixed Term Contracts Joint and Several Liability

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Loyiso and 28 Others

Applicant

Motingwa Anna Molamu

Applicant

Amethst (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Etquiton Corporation Investment

Respondent

Equiton Health Solutions

Respondent

Baoki Consortium

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Jurisdictional Challenge / Final Judgment After Argument on Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a contractual relationship between the applicants and the first respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants made out a case for lifting the corporate veil of the third respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain the applicants' claim for breach of contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish a contractual relationship with the first respondent, as their employment contracts were concluded with the third respondent. The facts did not support the contention that the first respondent was a party to the employment contracts or that the corporate veil of the third respondent should be pierced. There was no evidence of fraud, dishonesty, or improper conduct justifying the lifting of the corporate veil. Even if the veil were lifted, it would not make the first respondent a party to the contract. Consequently, the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the applicants' claim for breach of contract against the first respondent.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Costs awarded to the first respondent.

Orders

  • The point in limine raised by the first respondent is upheld.
  • The applicants’ application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.