Masinga v Almar Investments (Pty) Ltd (J564/23) [2024] ZALCJHB 381; [2024] 12 BLLR 1303 (LC); (2025) 46 ILJ 379 (LC) (8 October 2024)

Masinga v Almar Investments (Pty) Ltd (J564/23) [2024] ZALCJHB 381; [2024] 12 BLLR 1303 (LC); (2025) 46 ILJ 379 (LC) (8 October 2024)

The court found that no binding settlement agreement was concluded, as the applicant's acceptance of the proposed amount was expressly conditional on receipt of a tax directive and calculation of net payment. The respondent failed to obtain the tax directive and insisted on a signed agreement beforehand, evidencing lack of consensus. The respondent's defence of supervening impossibility due to Covid-19 was rejected for lack of evidence regarding its treatment of other employees and continued operations. The applicant's tender of services was accepted as fact, and the respondent's refusal to allow him to resume work rendered it liable for remuneration for the period between reinstatement...

Citation
[2024] ZALCJHB 381
Parties
Applicant: Simon Masinga; Respondent: Almar Investments (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 October 2024
Case Number
J564/23
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Opposed Motion
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the applicant.
Judges
M Lennox
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Reinstatement, Remuneration Claim, Settlement Agreement, Supervening Impossibility, Interest on Awards
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Reinstatement Remuneration Claim Settlement Agreement Supervening Impossibility Interest on Awards

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Masinga

Applicant

Almar Investments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Opposed Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding settlement agreement was concluded between the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to remuneration for the period between reinstatement and actual return to work.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's defences of supervening impossibility and lack of tender of services are valid.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that no binding settlement agreement was concluded, as the applicant's acceptance of the proposed amount was expressly conditional on receipt of a tax directive and calculation of net payment. The respondent failed to obtain the tax directive and insisted on a signed agreement beforehand, evidencing lack of consensus. The respondent's defence of supervening impossibility due to Covid-19 was rejected for lack of evidence regarding its treatment of other employees and continued operations. The applicant's tender of services was accepted as fact, and the respondent's refusal to allow him to resume work rendered it liable for remuneration for the period between reinstatement...

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay R931,997.80 to the applicant, comprising R736,000.00 in outstanding remuneration and R195,997.80 in interest.
  • Interest on the above amount from the date of this order to the date of payment at the prescribed rate in terms of the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act No 55 of 1975.