Sekoto v University of South Africa (JS 424/19) [2022] ZALCJHB 34 (28 February 2022)

Sekoto v University of South Africa (JS 424/19) [2022] ZALCJHB 34 (28 February 2022)

The court found that no valid and binding settlement agreement was concluded between Sekoto and UNISA. Although there was an intention to reach an agreement following discussions on 8 December 2017, the subsequent correspondence and conduct of the parties revealed a lack of consensus on the essential terms, particularly regarding Sekoto's reinstatement. The offer of a fixed-term contract by UNISA was not equivalent to reinstatement and demonstrated divergent positions. The purported oral agreement was ambiguous and lacked the requisite certainty for enforcement. As there was no enforceable settlement agreement, the application to make it an order of court under section 158(1)(c) of the...

Citation
[2022] ZALCJHB 34
Parties
Applicant: B.V.M. Sekoto; Respondent: University of South Africa
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 February 2022
Case Number
JS 424/19
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
The applicant's claim is dismissed.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Settlement Agreement, Section 158 1 C Lra, Reinstatement, Oral Contract, Meeting of Minds
Labour Law Settlement Agreement Section 158 1 C Lra Reinstatement Oral Contract Meeting of Minds

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B.V.M. Sekoto

Applicant

University of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a valid and binding settlement agreement was concluded between the applicant and respondent on 8 December 2017.
  2. 2 Whether the purported agreement is sufficiently certain and unequivocal to be made an order of court under section 158(1)(c) of the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to retrospective reinstatement and/or re-employment from 1 January 2018.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that no valid and binding settlement agreement was concluded between Sekoto and UNISA. Although there was an intention to reach an agreement following discussions on 8 December 2017, the subsequent correspondence and conduct of the parties revealed a lack of consensus on the essential terms, particularly regarding Sekoto's reinstatement. The offer of a fixed-term contract by UNISA was not equivalent to reinstatement and demonstrated divergent positions. The purported oral agreement was ambiguous and lacked the requisite certainty for enforcement. As there was no enforceable settlement agreement, the application to make it an order of court under section 158(1)(c) of the...

Court Disposition

The applicant's claim is dismissed.

Orders

  • The Applicant’s claim is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.