Ramohai and Others v Precinct Financial Consultants (Pty) Ltd and Others (1071/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 47 (26 April 2019)

Ramohai and Others v Precinct Financial Consultants (Pty) Ltd and Others (1071/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 47 (26 April 2019)

The court found that the applicants were contractually entitled to payment of commission and/or salaries for work performed, and that the respondents failed to pay the full amounts due. The respondents' points in limine were rejected as lacking substance: the authority of the deponent was not properly challenged, the High Court's jurisdiction was not ousted by the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, and the CCMA proceedings concerned different subject matter. The alleged irregularities in the affidavits were administrative and did not render the application fatal. The written agreement between the parties required the remuneration structures to remain unchanged until at least 28 February...

Citation
[2019] ZAFSHC 47
Parties
Applicant: Keneilwe Ramohai; Applicant: Portia Ramagaga; Applicant: Boitumelo Selaledi; Applicant: Selabe Mothupi; Applicant: Moloedi Lechoano; Applicant: Ntebalang Khoete; Applicant: Trevor Tsupa; Respondent: Precinct Financial Consultants (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Leboko Andries Mogotsi; Respondent: Niel Du Plessis
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 April 2019
Case Number
1071/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Application for Payment of Commission/salaries
Outcome
Application granted. Respondents ordered to pay specified amounts to applicants and costs on magistrate's court scale.
Judges
Mhlambi
Legal Topics
Contract of Employment, Remuneration Dispute, Urgent Interdict, Points in Limine, Jurisdiction, Lis Pendens
Labour Law Civil Procedure Contract of Employment Remuneration Dispute Urgent Interdict Points in Limine Jurisdiction Lis Pendens

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keneilwe Ramohai

Applicant

Portia Ramagaga

Applicant

Boitumelo Selaledi

Applicant

Selabe Mothupi

Applicant

Moloedi Lechoano

Applicant

Ntebalang Khoete

Applicant

Trevor Tsupa

Applicant

Precinct Financial Consultants (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Leboko Andries Mogotsi

Respondent

Niel Du Plessis

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Application for Payment of Commission/salaries

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were paid the full amounts of commission and/or salaries due to them.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' points in limine (authority, jurisdiction, lis pendens, irregular commissioning) are sustainable.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction over the employment-related claims.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were contractually entitled to payment of commission and/or salaries for work performed, and that the respondents failed to pay the full amounts due. The respondents' points in limine were rejected as lacking substance: the authority of the deponent was not properly challenged, the High Court's jurisdiction was not ousted by the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, and the CCMA proceedings concerned different subject matter. The alleged irregularities in the affidavits were administrative and did not render the application fatal. The written agreement between the parties required the remuneration structures to remain unchanged until at least 28 February...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Respondents ordered to pay specified amounts to applicants and costs on magistrate's court scale.

Orders

  • The first respondent is ordered to pay to the applicants remuneration/commission in the following amounts: Second applicant R 8 067.26; Third applicant R 16 588.34; Fourth applicant R 5 640.31; Fifth applicant R 8 621.72; Seventh applicant R 12 744.00.
  • The second and third respondents are ordered to take all necessary steps to give effect to the above payments.