American Friends Service Committee v Irene Chauke

The respondent was initially employed by the appellant on fixed term contracts until September 2007. After this period she continued to render services to the appellant and her employment was extended on several occasions until June 2009 when it was terminated. At the time of termination she had been on a monthly salary of US$1,500 and was required to work five days per week and eight hours per day. The respondent was required to carry out the functions of office co-ordinator and programmer and was also required to report on her activities to the regional office based in South Africa. An arbitrator determined that an employer/employee relationship existed and awarded damages for unlawful termination. The Labour Court confirmed this determination and award. The appellant appealed both the finding of employment relationship and the quantum of damages.

• Whether an employer/employee relationship existed between the appellant and respondent
• Whether the Labour Court misdirected itself in finding that a contract of employment existed
• Whether the quantum of damages awarded by the arbitrator was properly proved and justified

1. The appeal succeeds to the extent that the award of damages is set aside. 2. The matter is remitted to the court a quo for the quantification of damages to be done after evidence has been adduced. 3. Each party is to pay its own costs.

In employment termination cases, damages must be properly proved by the party claiming them through admissible evidence. It is an error of law for a court to accept a claim for damages based solely on an unsubstantiated statement of claim, even where the opposing party has not contested the quantum. The burden of proof remains on the claimant to establish the quantum of damages with proper evidence.

The Court observed that although the grounds of appeal were inelegantly worded, the appeal raised a question of law (not merely a question of fact as suggested by the respondent) and was therefore properly before the Supreme Court. The Court also noted that since the appellant was only partially successful in the appeal (succeeding on quantum but not on the existence of the employment relationship), it was appropriate for each party to bear its own costs.

This case reinforces the principle in labour law that damages for unlawful termination of employment must be properly proved with evidence and cannot be based merely on unsubstantiated claims, even where the opposing party does not contest them. It clarifies the burden of proof in employment termination disputes and establishes that courts must require proper evidence for damages awards regardless of whether the claim is opposed. The case also provides guidance on determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship based on practical indicators such as fixed salary, set working hours, defined job functions, and reporting requirements.