Pasha v Pandora Jewellery South Africa (Pty) Ltd (C91-2022) [2024] ZALCCT 13 (19 February 2024)

Pasha v Pandora Jewellery South Africa (Pty) Ltd (C91-2022) [2024] ZALCCT 13 (19 February 2024)

The court found that the respondent failed to prove compliance with the contractual pre-condition requiring four weeks' notice before amending the commission structure. There was no evidence that the applicant was notified of the intention to terminate the bonus commission, nor was it put to her that such notice was given. The respondent continued to pay the bonus commission after the July 2021 amendment, and there was no communication that the payments were discretionary. Therefore, the purported scrapping of the bonus commission did not comply with the contract, and the bonus commission remained contractually enforceable. The in limine objection was dismissed.

Citation
[2024] ZALCCT 13
Parties
Applicant: Mmatlawa Ntebogeng Nadine Pasha; Respondent: Pandora Jewellery South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 February 2024
Case Number
C91-2022
Procedural Posture
Labour Trial / In Limine Ruling Before Trial
Outcome
Respondent's in limine objection dismissed. Costs awarded to applicant for attendance and representation at the hearing.
Judges
R G Lagrange
Legal Topics
Employment Contract Amendment, Commission Entitlement, Bonus Dispute, Pre Condition for Contractual Change
Labour Law Civil Procedure Employment Contract Amendment Commission Entitlement Bonus Dispute Pre Condition for Contractual Change

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mmatlawa Ntebogeng Nadine Pasha

Applicant

Pandora Jewellery South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Trial / In Limine Ruling Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent lawfully amended the applicant's entitlement to bonus commission under her employment contract.
  2. 2 Whether the pre-condition for amending the commission structure was complied with by the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the bonus commission was contractually enforceable after the July 2021 amendment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to prove compliance with the contractual pre-condition requiring four weeks' notice before amending the commission structure. There was no evidence that the applicant was notified of the intention to terminate the bonus commission, nor was it put to her that such notice was given. The respondent continued to pay the bonus commission after the July 2021 amendment, and there was no communication that the payments were discretionary. Therefore, the purported scrapping of the bonus commission did not comply with the contract, and the bonus commission remained contractually enforceable. The in limine objection was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Respondent's in limine objection dismissed. Costs awarded to applicant for attendance and representation at the hearing.

Orders

  • The respondent's in limine objection is dismissed.
  • The respondent must pay the applicant's costs of attendance and representation at the hearing on 12 February 2022.