Maloka v Workerslife Direct (Pty) Ltd (J1446/13) [2017] ZALCJHB 303 (25 August 2017)

Maloka v Workerslife Direct (Pty) Ltd (J1446/13) [2017] ZALCJHB 303 (25 August 2017)

The court found that the applicant provided clear, consistent, and credible evidence that he signed the GSB contract with the respondent on 20 November 2000. The evidence of regular commission and target bonus payments, which were not provided for in the administrative contract, strongly supported the existence and implementation of the GSB contract. The respondent's challenge to the authenticity of the contract was inconsistent, unsupported by direct evidence, and ultimately collapsed during cross-examination. The court held that the applicant had proved on a balance of probabilities that the GSB contract was concluded and that he was entitled to post-termination commission payments as...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 303
Parties
Applicant: Edmond Maloka; Respondent: Workerslife Direct (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 August 2017
Case Number
J1446/13
Procedural Posture
Specific Performance Application / Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the applicant. The respondent is ordered to pay all outstanding and future commissions as per the GSB contract and costs.
Judges
Barnes
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Employment Contract, Commission Entitlement, Contract Authenticity, Section 77 Bcea
Labour Law Civil Procedure Specific Performance Employment Contract Commission Entitlement Contract Authenticity Section 77 Bcea

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

Parties

Edmond Maloka

Applicant

Workerslife Direct (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Specific Performance Application / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant concluded the Group Scheme Broker (GSB) contract with the respondent entitling him to post-termination commission payments.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is liable to pay the applicant commission for the month of March 2013.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent must comply with clause 5.1.1 of the GSB contract and pay future commissions for the period equivalent to the applicant's term of service.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant provided clear, consistent, and credible evidence that he signed the GSB contract with the respondent on 20 November 2000. The evidence of regular commission and target bonus payments, which were not provided for in the administrative contract, strongly supported the existence and implementation of the GSB contract. The respondent's challenge to the authenticity of the contract was inconsistent, unsupported by direct evidence, and ultimately collapsed during cross-examination. The court held that the applicant had proved on a balance of probabilities that the GSB contract was concluded and that he was entitled to post-termination commission payments as...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicant. The respondent is ordered to pay all outstanding and future commissions as per the GSB contract and costs.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant the commission earned for March 2013 within 7 days of the judgment.
  • The respondent is ordered to comply with clause 5.1.1 of the applicant's GSB contract of employment concluded on 20 November 2000.