Marais v Renault South Africa (Pty) Ltd (84098/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 717 (15 July 2025)

Marais v Renault South Africa (Pty) Ltd (84098/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 717 (15 July 2025)

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claim for unlawful termination, as such matters fall within the exclusive domain of the Labour Court and had already been decided against the plaintiff in prior proceedings. The plaintiff failed to prove that she made protected disclosures in good faith or that she suffered occupational detriment as contemplated by the Protected Disclosures Act. Her evidence was found to be unreliable, lacking credibility, and unsupported by documentary or factual proof. The delictual claim also failed, as the plaintiff did not prove the alleged discriminatory utterances, intentional harm, or any quantifiable damages. The court held that the...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 717
Parties
Plaintiff: Illana Marais; Defendant: Renault South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 July 2025
Case Number
84098/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claims dismissed with punitive costs.
Judges
S Potterill
Legal Topics
Protected Disclosure Act, Unfair Dismissal, Occupational Detriment, Action Injuria, Vicarious Liability, Quantum of Damages
Labour Law Delict Protected Disclosure Act Unfair Dismissal Occupational Detriment Action Injuria Vicarious Liability Quantum of Damages

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

Parties

Illana Marais

Plaintiff

Renault South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff made protected disclosures in terms of the Protected Disclosures Act and suffered occupational detriment as a result.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's dismissal was unlawful and actionable in this court.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant, through its employee, committed a delict by making discriminatory utterances and thereby injuring the plaintiff's dignity and reputation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the claim for unlawful termination, as such matters fall within the exclusive domain of the Labour Court and had already been decided against the plaintiff in prior proceedings. The plaintiff failed to prove that she made protected disclosures in good faith or that she suffered occupational detriment as contemplated by the Protected Disclosures Act. Her evidence was found to be unreliable, lacking credibility, and unsupported by documentary or factual proof. The delictual claim also failed, as the plaintiff did not prove the alleged discriminatory utterances, intentional harm, or any quantifiable damages. The court held that the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claims dismissed with punitive costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is to carry the costs on attorney and client scale.