Mahofa v Protabac (Pty) Ltd and Another

The plaintiff, Edward Mahofa, instituted proceedings in the Labour Court for payment of accrued leave in the amount of R79 649.86 and unpaid salary in the amount of R1 380 810.00, relying on the Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997. He alleged that he was employed by both Protabac (Pty) Ltd (first defendant) and The Pacific Cigarette Company (Pty) Ltd (second defendant) from 1 June 2022. A written contract of employment was concluded between the plaintiff and the first defendant, appointing him as Finance Controller (Proto & PCCSA). The plaintiff claimed joint and several liability for accrued leave against both defendants and unpaid salary against the second defendant. The defendants excepted to the amended statement of claim on the basis that it disclosed no cause of action and was vague and embarrassing, contending that the plaintiff was employed only by the first defendant and that no factual or contractual basis was pleaded to hold the second defendant liable.

The defendants’ exception was upheld. The plaintiff’s amended statement of claim was struck out for failing to disclose a cause of action. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend his amended statement of claim within 15 days. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants’ costs on a party and party scale.

The case reaffirms core principles governing exceptions in South African civil and labour litigation, particularly that a plaintiff must clearly plead the factual and legal basis for an alleged employment relationship and for joint and several liability. It underscores that mere assertions of dual employment, without supporting contractual or factual averments, are insufficient to sustain claims against multiple defendants.