Solidarity and Others v Landman and Others (JS600/03) [2015] ZALCJHB 454 (8 December 2015)

Solidarity and Others v Landman and Others (JS600/03) [2015] ZALCJHB 454 (8 December 2015)

The applicants failed to adduce evidence that they were dismissed by the first respondent, Landman, as required by section 186(1)(a) of the LRA. The evidence did not establish any overt act by Landman that terminated the employment relationship. Furthermore, the referral to the CCMA was made before any alleged dismissal, rendering it premature and fatally defective. As a result, there was no basis on which the court could find for the applicants, and the first respondent was entitled to absolution from the instance.

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 454
Parties
Applicant: Solidarity; Applicant: Stewart, EM; Applicant: Enslin, EM; Respondent: Landman JM DR; Respondent: Heyman, JF; Respondent: Du Preez JG DR; Respondent: Trustees for the time being of the Malele Trust
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 December 2015
Case Number
JS600/03
Procedural Posture
Trial / Application for Absolution From the Instance at Close of Applicants' Case
Outcome
Absolution from the instance granted in favour of the first respondent.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Automatic Unfair Dismissal, Transfer of Business, Jurisdictional Issue, Absolution From Instance
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Automatic Unfair Dismissal Transfer of Business Jurisdictional Issue Absolution From Instance

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Solidarity

Applicant

Stewart, EM

Applicant

Enslin, EM

Applicant

Landman JM DR

Respondent

Heyman, JF

Respondent

Du Preez JG DR

Respondent

Trustees for the time being of the Malele Trust

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trial / Application for Absolution From the Instance at Close of Applicants' Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were dismissed by the first respondent within the meaning of section 186(1)(a) of the LRA.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' referral to the CCMA was premature and thus fatally defective.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent is entitled to absolution from the instance.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to adduce evidence that they were dismissed by the first respondent, Landman, as required by section 186(1)(a) of the LRA. The evidence did not establish any overt act by Landman that terminated the employment relationship. Furthermore, the referral to the CCMA was made before any alleged dismissal, rendering it premature and fatally defective. As a result, there was no basis on which the court could find for the applicants, and the first respondent was entitled to absolution from the instance.

Court Disposition

Absolution from the instance granted in favour of the first respondent.

Orders

  • The first respondent is granted absolution from the instance.
  • Each party is to bear its own costs.