Phasha v Pandora Jewellery South Africa (Pty) Ltd (C91/2022) [2025] ZALCCT 21; [2025] 6 BLLR 627 (LC) (7 April 2025)

Phasha v Pandora Jewellery South Africa (Pty) Ltd (C91/2022) [2025] ZALCCT 21; [2025] 6 BLLR 627 (LC) (7 April 2025)

The court found that although Pandora conceded in the pre-trial minute that Phasha was entitled to a bonus commission, the calculation of the sales target for November 2021 was patently erroneous and could not be relied upon to establish entitlement to the claimed bonus. The evidence showed that the target set for the V&A Waterfront store was anomalously low compared to other stores, and Phasha herself doubted its correctness. The court held that the probabilities did not support the existence of a contractual entitlement to the claimed bonus amount. Furthermore, the plaintiff's failure to produce the original contract was not fatal, given Pandora's concession, but the claim failed on the...

Citation
[2025] ZALCCT 21
Parties
Plaintiff: Mmatlawa Ntebogeng Nadine Phasha; Defendant: Pandora Jewellery South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 April 2025
Case Number
C91/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs awarded against her on the magistrates' court scale.
Judges
R G Lagrange
Legal Topics
Remuneration Disputes, Bonus Commission, Contractual Entitlement, Costs Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Remuneration Disputes Bonus Commission Contractual Entitlement Costs Award

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mmatlawa Ntebogeng Nadine Phasha

Plaintiff

Pandora Jewellery South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was contractually entitled to a bonus commission for November 2021.
  2. 2 Whether the sales target used to calculate the bonus commission was erroneous and could be relied upon.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's failure to produce the original written contract was fatal to her claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although Pandora conceded in the pre-trial minute that Phasha was entitled to a bonus commission, the calculation of the sales target for November 2021 was patently erroneous and could not be relied upon to establish entitlement to the claimed bonus. The evidence showed that the target set for the V&A Waterfront store was anomalously low compared to other stores, and Phasha herself doubted its correctness. The court held that the probabilities did not support the existence of a contractual entitlement to the claimed bonus amount. Furthermore, the plaintiff's failure to produce the original contract was not fatal, given Pandora's concession, but the claim failed on the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs awarded against her on the magistrates' court scale.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.
  • The Plaintiff must pay the Defendant’s costs of preparing and presenting argument on 10 June 2024 on the magistrates court scale of costs.