Mckenzie v Jantjies (C472/2021) [2023] ZALCCT 27 (21 June 2023)

Mckenzie v Jantjies (C472/2021) [2023] ZALCCT 27 (21 June 2023)

The Court found that the right to relief sought against Jantjies was distinct from that sought against the Respondent. The claim against the Respondent concerned making a settlement agreement an order of court, while the claim against Jantjies would be for damages based on fraudulent misrepresentation if the agreement was found to be a forgery. These claims involve different questions of law and fact. Furthermore, the Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a damages claim based on fraudulent misrepresentation; such claims must be brought before the civil courts. The Court also found that Jantjies did not have a substantial interest in the subject matter of the proceedings,...

Citation
[2023] ZALCCT 27
Parties
Applicant: Tony McKenzie; Respondent: Simon Jantjies; Respondent: Transnet SOC Ltd
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 June 2023
Case Number
C472/2021
Procedural Posture
Joinder Application / Application for Joinder of Second Respondent
Outcome
Application for joinder of Jantjies as Second Respondent dismissed.
Judges
C de Kock
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Labour Court Jurisdiction, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Settlement Agreement
Labour Law Civil Procedure Joinder of Parties Labour Court Jurisdiction Fraudulent Misrepresentation Settlement Agreement

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tony McKenzie

Applicant

Simon Jantjies

Respondent

Transnet SOC Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Joinder Application / Application for Joinder of Second Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Jantjies should be joined as a second respondent in the proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the right to relief against Jantjies depends on substantially the same questions of law or fact as against the Respondent.
  3. 3 Whether Jantjies has a substantial interest in the subject matter of the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the right to relief sought against Jantjies was distinct from that sought against the Respondent. The claim against the Respondent concerned making a settlement agreement an order of court, while the claim against Jantjies would be for damages based on fraudulent misrepresentation if the agreement was found to be a forgery. These claims involve different questions of law and fact. Furthermore, the Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain a damages claim based on fraudulent misrepresentation; such claims must be brought before the civil courts. The Court also found that Jantjies did not have a substantial interest in the subject matter of the proceedings,...

Court Disposition

Application for joinder of Jantjies as Second Respondent dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for Jantjies to be joined as a Second Respondent is dismissed.
  • No order is made as to costs.