Moloto v City of Cape Town (C657/2009) [2010] ZALC 178; [2011] 3 BLLR 276 (LC); (2011) 32 ILJ 1153 (LC) (19 November 2010)

Moloto v City of Cape Town (C657/2009) [2010] ZALC 178; [2011] 3 BLLR 276 (LC); (2011) 32 ILJ 1153 (LC) (19 November 2010)

The applicant's fixed-term contract was varied to an indefinite contract of employment. The parties agreed that the standard notice period applicable was four weeks. The respondent gave more than one month's prior notice of termination, which complies with both the common law and the BCEA. There was no evidence of a contractual clause limiting the right to dismiss, nor any basis for importing an implied term prohibiting termination without good cause. The applicant's reliance on implied terms was rejected in light of the SCA's decision in McKenzie, which held that statutory remedies under the LRA are sufficient and should not be duplicated in common law. As the contract was lawfully...

Citation
[2010] ZALC 178
Parties
Applicant: Mamotshabo Sarah Moloto; Respondent: City of Cape Town
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 November 2010
Case Number
C657/2009
Procedural Posture
Damages Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
Francis
Legal Topics
Breach of Employment Contract, Reasonable Notice, Damages for Wrongful Termination, Implied Terms in Employment, Jurisdictional Quagmire
Labour Law Civil Procedure Breach of Employment Contract Reasonable Notice Damages for Wrongful Termination Implied Terms in Employment Jurisdictional Quagmire

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mamotshabo Sarah Moloto

Applicant

City of Cape Town

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Damages Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent breached the contract of employment by giving notice of termination.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to damages for alleged wrongful termination of her employment contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's fixed-term contract was varied to an indefinite contract of employment. The parties agreed that the standard notice period applicable was four weeks. The respondent gave more than one month's prior notice of termination, which complies with both the common law and the BCEA. There was no evidence of a contractual clause limiting the right to dismiss, nor any basis for importing an implied term prohibiting termination without good cause. The applicant's reliance on implied terms was rejected in light of the SCA's decision in McKenzie, which held that statutory remedies under the LRA are sufficient and should not be duplicated in common law. As the contract was lawfully...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.