Slemming v University of the Western Cape (12559/10) [2012] ZAWCHC 389 (13 December 2012)

Slemming v University of the Western Cape (12559/10) [2012] ZAWCHC 389 (13 December 2012)

The court found that the true intention of the parties was to conclude a fixed term contract of employment for the period 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008. The references to a five-year term in the contract documentation were typographical errors and did not reflect the consensus between the parties. The plaintiff's own correspondence and conduct supported the one-year duration, and there was no evidence of agreement to a five-year or indefinite contract. Claims based on tacit renewal or unjust enrichment were not pleaded and could not be considered. The plaintiff failed to prove the existence of an enforceable contract after 31 December 2008, and her claims were dismissed.

Citation
[2012] ZAWCHC 389
Parties
Plaintiff: Fatima Slemming; Defendant: University of the Western Cape
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 December 2012
Case Number
12559/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with costs.
Judges
P B Fourie
Legal Topics
Fixed Term Employment Contract, Rectification of Contract, Tacit Renewal, Unjust Enrichment
Labour Law Civil Procedure Fixed Term Employment Contract Rectification of Contract Tacit Renewal Unjust Enrichment

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

Parties

Fatima Slemming

Plaintiff

University of the Western Cape

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employment contract between the plaintiff and defendant was for a fixed term ending 31 December 2008 or for a five-year period ending 31 December 2012.
  2. 2 Whether the contract documentation should be rectified to reflect the parties' true intention regarding the duration of employment.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to salary and benefits for the period after 31 December 2008 based on tacit renewal or unjust enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the true intention of the parties was to conclude a fixed term contract of employment for the period 1 January 2008 to 31 December 2008. The references to a five-year term in the contract documentation were typographical errors and did not reflect the consensus between the parties. The plaintiff's own correspondence and conduct supported the one-year duration, and there was no evidence of agreement to a five-year or indefinite contract. Claims based on tacit renewal or unjust enrichment were not pleaded and could not be considered. The plaintiff failed to prove the existence of an enforceable contract after 31 December 2008, and her claims were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claims are dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is ordered to pay the defendant's costs.