Modise v King Valet CC (J243/98) [1998] ZALC 9 (29 April 1998)

Modise v King Valet CC (J243/98) [1998] ZALC 9 (29 April 1998)

The court found that the applicant failed to report for duty on the date stipulated in the settlement agreement, namely 12 January 1998. Even if she arrived on 13 January 1998, this did not comply with the express terms of the agreement. The union's failure to notify the applicant timeously does not shift responsibility to the respondent, who acted in good faith to settle the dispute and reinstate the applicant. The applicant's breach of the agreement precludes her from holding the respondent to its terms or having the agreement made an order of court.

Citation
[1998] ZALC 9
Parties
Applicant: Ms Kate Modise; Respondent: King Valet CC
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 April 1998
Case Number
J243/98
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Make Settlement Agreement an Order of Court
Outcome
Application dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Settlement Agreement, Reinstatement, Breach of Agreement
Labour Law Settlement Agreement Reinstatement Breach of 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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Kate Modise

Applicant

King Valet CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Make Settlement Agreement an Order of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant complied with the terms of the settlement agreement regarding the date of recommencement of employment.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was in breach of the settlement agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the settlement agreement can be made an order of court despite the applicant's breach.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to report for duty on the date stipulated in the settlement agreement, namely 12 January 1998. Even if she arrived on 13 January 1998, this did not comply with the express terms of the agreement. The union's failure to notify the applicant timeously does not shift responsibility to the respondent, who acted in good faith to settle the dispute and reinstate the applicant. The applicant's breach of the agreement precludes her from holding the respondent to its terms or having the agreement made an order of court.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.