Red Alert Cleaning and Security Services v Mqedlana and Others (CA32/19) [2019] ZAECMHC 50 (17 September 2019)

Red Alert Cleaning and Security Services v Mqedlana and Others (CA32/19) [2019] ZAECMHC 50 (17 September 2019)

The court found that the respondents had tendered their services but were prevented from working due to circumstances beyond their control, including threats from striking university community members and instructions from the appellant not to return pending disciplinary proceedings. The appellant failed to provide reliable evidence, such as confirmatory affidavits or attendance registers, to contest the respondents' claims. The court held that there was no genuine dispute of fact regarding the tender of services and that the respondents were entitled to payment of their salaries for the relevant period. The appeal was dismissed, and the order of specific performance granted by the court...

Citation
[2019] ZAECMHC 50
Parties
Appellant: Red Alert Cleaning and Security Services; Respondent: Babalwa Mqedlana and Others
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 September 2019
Case Number
CA32/19
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Specific Performance Granted by Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
B Majiki, G H Bloem, A Da Silva
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Employment Contract, Remuneration, Tender of Service, Urgent Application
Labour Law Civil Procedure Specific Performance Employment Contract Remuneration Tender of Service Urgent Application

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Red Alert Cleaning and Security Services

Appellant

Babalwa Mqedlana and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Specific Performance Granted by Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents tendered their services in terms of their employment contracts after 2 March 2018.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was entitled to withhold payment of salaries for March to May 2018.
  3. 3 Whether there was a genuine dispute of fact regarding the tender of services.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents had tendered their services but were prevented from working due to circumstances beyond their control, including threats from striking university community members and instructions from the appellant not to return pending disciplinary proceedings. The appellant failed to provide reliable evidence, such as confirmatory affidavits or attendance registers, to contest the respondents' claims. The court held that there was no genuine dispute of fact regarding the tender of services and that the respondents were entitled to payment of their salaries for the relevant period. The appeal was dismissed, and the order of specific performance granted by the court...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.