Nkosi and Others v MEC for the Department of Economic Development and Planning and Another (16166/2007) [2015] ZAGPPHC 769 (12 November 2015)
The court found that it had jurisdiction to hear the matter under s 77(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, as the claim was based on breach of contract rather than unfair dismissal. The plaintiffs admitted to committing corruption and were convicted in a criminal court. The employer, upon learning of the convictions, summarily dismissed the plaintiffs. The court held that fraud and corruption constitute a fundamental breach of the employment contract, entitling the employer to terminate the contract without further process. The plaintiffs themselves repudiated the contract by their criminal conduct, and the employer lawfully accepted the repudiation by dismissing them. There was...
- Citation
- [2015] ZAGPPHC 769
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mavela William Nkosi; Plaintiff: Elijah Madoda Shabangu; Plaintiff: Mfanakuphi Mishack Nkosi; Defendant: MEC of the Department of Economic Development and Planning; Defendant: Simangele Sekgobela
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 12 November 2015
- Case Number
- 16166/2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Trial / Judgment After Consolidated Trial; Defendants Absent; Matter Proceeded on an Undefended Basis
- Outcome
- Plaintiffs' claims dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- Kubushi
- Legal Topics
- Breach of Employment Contract, Summary Dismissal, Jurisdiction of High Court, Repudiation, Damages Calculation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mavela William Nkosi
Plaintiff
Elijah Madoda Shabangu
Plaintiff
Mfanakuphi Mishack Nkosi
Plaintiff
MEC of the Department of Economic Development and Planning
Defendant
Simangele Sekgobela
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Consolidated Trial; Defendants Absent; Matter Proceeded on an Undefended Basis
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear a claim based on breach of contract of employment under s 77(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.
- 2 Whether the summary dismissal of the plaintiffs following criminal conviction for corruption constituted a breach of contract by the employer.
- 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages for alleged unlawful dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that it had jurisdiction to hear the matter under s 77(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, as the claim was based on breach of contract rather than unfair dismissal. The plaintiffs admitted to committing corruption and were convicted in a criminal court. The employer, upon learning of the convictions, summarily dismissed the plaintiffs. The court held that fraud and corruption constitute a fundamental breach of the employment contract, entitling the employer to terminate the contract without further process. The plaintiffs themselves repudiated the contract by their criminal conduct, and the employer lawfully accepted the repudiation by dismissing them. There was...
Court Disposition
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The special plea of lack of jurisdiction is dismissed with costs.
- The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment