Reddy v Airports Company South Africa & others (J 597/2021) [2021] ZALCJHB 99 (7 June 2021)

Reddy v Airports Company South Africa & others (J 597/2021) [2021] ZALCJHB 99 (7 June 2021)

The court found that there are material disputes of fact regarding whether the settlement agreement was concluded with proper authority and whether the penalty of a written warning was implemented. These disputes cannot be resolved on affidavit in motion proceedings. Accordingly, the matter is referred to oral evidence on these issues. Pending the outcome, the first respondent is interdicted from proceeding with the disciplinary enquiry based on the notice issued on 25 May 2021. Costs are reserved for determination by the trial court.

Citation
[2021] ZALCJHB 99
Parties
Applicant: Kisthappa Reddy; Respondent: Airports Company South Africa; Respondent: Terry Motau SC N.O; Respondent: Nazeer Cassim SC N.O; Respondent: Teneille Govender N.O
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 June 2021
Case Number
J 597/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Referral to Oral Evidence After Urgent Application
Outcome
Application partially granted; matter referred to oral evidence on specified issues; interim interdict granted.
Judges
André van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Settlement Agreement, Disciplinary Procedure, Authority of Representative, Interdict, Motion Proceedings
Labour Law Civil Procedure Settlement Agreement Disciplinary Procedure Authority of Representative Interdict Motion Proceedings

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kisthappa Reddy

Applicant

Airports Company South Africa

Respondent

Terry Motau SC N.O

Respondent

Nazeer Cassim SC N.O

Respondent

Teneille Govender N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Referral to Oral Evidence After Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent's representative was authorised to conclude the settlement agreement on behalf of the first respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the penalty of a written warning contemplated by the settlement agreement was issued to the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the institution of a fresh disciplinary hearing breaches the settlement agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there are material disputes of fact regarding whether the settlement agreement was concluded with proper authority and whether the penalty of a written warning was implemented. These disputes cannot be resolved on affidavit in motion proceedings. Accordingly, the matter is referred to oral evidence on these issues. Pending the outcome, the first respondent is interdicted from proceeding with the disciplinary enquiry based on the notice issued on 25 May 2021. Costs are reserved for determination by the trial court.

Court Disposition

Application partially granted; matter referred to oral evidence on specified issues; interim interdict granted.

Orders

  • The dispute regarding authority to conclude the settlement agreement and issuance of the written warning is referred to oral evidence.
  • Pending the outcome, the first respondent is interdicted from continuing with any disciplinary enquiry against the applicant based on the notice issued on 25 May 2021.