Martrose Enterprises (Pty) Ltd. v Emblin (8/1983) [1984] ZASCA 161; [1985] 1 All SA 438 (A) (30 November 1984)

Martrose Enterprises (Pty) Ltd. v Emblin (8/1983) [1984] ZASCA 161; [1985] 1 All SA 438 (A) (30 November 1984)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the respondent failed to prove that the appellant repudiated the employment contract. The evidence showed that the appellant did not intend to dismiss the respondent and even asked him to return to work. Therefore, the respondent was not entitled to damages in lieu of notice for April 1981. Regarding the counterclaim, the court agreed with the trial judge that the appellant failed to prove damages in the Minarex transaction due to confusion over the identity of the relevant fork-lift. However, in the Liberty Box transaction, the appellant proved a loss of profit of R1,899.84, as the respondent wrongfully frustrated a sale and the appellant's business...

Citation
[1984] ZASCA 161
Parties
Appellant: Martrose Enterprises (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: Derek Keith Emblin
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 November 1984
Case Number
8/1983
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Judgment for respondent on main claim (R1,803.00). Judgment for appellant on counterclaim (R1,899.84). Set-off applied; respondent to pay appellant R96.84. Each party to pay own costs in the action. Appellant awarded costs of appeal.
Judges
Cillié, Botha, Smalberger
Legal Topics
Employment Contract, Repudiation, Damages in Lieu of Notice, Set Off, Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Employment Contract Repudiation Damages in Lieu of Notice Set Off Breach of Fiduciary Duty

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martrose Enterprises (Proprietary) Limited

Appellant

Derek Keith Emblin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was entitled to damages in lieu of notice for April 1981.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant proved damages resulting from the respondent's breach of contract.
  3. 3 Whether set-off should operate between the main claim and the counterclaim.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the respondent failed to prove that the appellant repudiated the employment contract. The evidence showed that the appellant did not intend to dismiss the respondent and even asked him to return to work. Therefore, the respondent was not entitled to damages in lieu of notice for April 1981. Regarding the counterclaim, the court agreed with the trial judge that the appellant failed to prove damages in the Minarex transaction due to confusion over the identity of the relevant fork-lift. However, in the Liberty Box transaction, the appellant proved a loss of profit of R1,899.84, as the respondent wrongfully frustrated a sale and the appellant's business...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Judgment for respondent on main claim (R1,803.00). Judgment for appellant on counterclaim (R1,899.84). Set-off applied; respondent to pay appellant R96.84. Each party to pay own costs in the action. Appellant awarded costs of appeal.

Orders

  • Application for condonation of late filing of the record is granted; appellant to bear costs occasioned thereby.
  • Appeal is allowed with costs.