Msezeni and Others v Workforce Group (Pty) Ltd and Another (30437/2018) [2021] ZAGPJHC 133 (17 May 2021)

Msezeni and Others v Workforce Group (Pty) Ltd and Another (30437/2018) [2021] ZAGPJHC 133 (17 May 2021)

The court found that the applicants were employed by the second respondent throughout their period of employment, as evidenced by payslips and contracts signed with the second respondent. The first respondent failed to produce legible or credible contracts of employment with the applicants, and the authenticity of the signatures was disputed and not proven. The second respondent did not oppose the application or dispute the applicants' version. The court held that it had jurisdiction to determine the matter under section 77(3) of the BCEA, as it concerned a contract of employment. The first respondent's affidavits were considered, but the second affidavit was not admitted due to...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 133
Parties
Applicant: Nontandazo Msezeni; Applicant: Sive Twani; Applicant: Nomfuneko Nkomiphela; Applicant: Nomaxhosa Khalipha; Applicant: Elizabeth Chauke; Applicant: Nonzwakazi Sikhwepha; Applicant: Palesa Mokoena; Respondent: Workforce Group (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Dew Crisp (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 May 2021
Case Number
30437/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Application to Determine Employer Status and Validity of Employment Contracts
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the applicants. The second respondent is declared to have been the employer of the applicants throughout their employment and at the time of dismissal. Costs awarded against the first respondent.
Judges
S C Mia
Legal Topics
Contract of Employment, Jurisdiction of Civil Courts, Locus Standi, Admissibility of Affidavits, Prohibited Conduct by Employer
Labour Law Civil Procedure Contract of Employment Jurisdiction of Civil Courts Locus Standi Admissibility of Affidavits Prohibited Conduct by Employer

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nontandazo Msezeni

Applicant

Sive Twani

Applicant

Nomfuneko Nkomiphela

Applicant

Nomaxhosa Khalipha

Applicant

Elizabeth Chauke

Applicant

Nonzwakazi Sikhwepha

Applicant

Palesa Mokoena

Applicant

Workforce Group (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Dew Crisp (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Application to Determine Employer Status and Validity of Employment Contracts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent or the second respondent was the employer of the applicants at the time of dismissal.
  2. 2 Whether the contracts of employment produced by the first respondent are valid and bear the genuine signatures of the applicants.
  3. 3 Whether the answering affidavits of the first respondent are admissible given alleged defects in commissioning.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were employed by the second respondent throughout their period of employment, as evidenced by payslips and contracts signed with the second respondent. The first respondent failed to produce legible or credible contracts of employment with the applicants, and the authenticity of the signatures was disputed and not proven. The second respondent did not oppose the application or dispute the applicants' version. The court held that it had jurisdiction to determine the matter under section 77(3) of the BCEA, as it concerned a contract of employment. The first respondent's affidavits were considered, but the second affidavit was not admitted due to...

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the applicants. The second respondent is declared to have been the employer of the applicants throughout their employment and at the time of dismissal. Costs awarded against the first respondent.

Orders

  • The second respondent has always been the employer of the applicants throughout the whole period of the applicants' employment at the second respondent and when the applicants were dismissed and/or their services were terminated at the second respondent.
  • The first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application.