In April 2024, the plaintiff instituted proceedings against two defendants claiming payment of accrued leave (R79,649.86) and unpaid salary (R1,380,810.00) in terms of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. The plaintiff alleged he was employed by both defendants from 1 June 2022, relying on a contract of employment signed between him and the first defendant which designated him as "Finance Controller (Proto & PCCSA)". The plaintiff sought joint and several liability from both defendants for accrued leave, and claimed the second defendant failed to pay him salary despite the first defendant paying him in full. The defendants filed an exception after the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim on 1 July 2024, arguing the claim disclosed no cause of action and/or was vague and embarrassing. Evidence showed the contract of employment was concluded solely with the first defendant, the first defendant paid the plaintiff's salary, and the plaintiff's UI19 form identified only the first defendant as his employer.
1. The defendants' exception was upheld. 2. It was declared that the plaintiff's amended statement of claim does not disclose a cause of action in respect of the two claims and the claims were struck out. 3. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend his amended statement of claim dated 1 July 2024 within 15 days of receipt of the judgment. 4. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs on a party-to-party scale.
A plaintiff seeking to hold multiple defendants jointly and severally liable for employment-related claims must plead sufficient facts to establish an employment relationship with each defendant. Where a contract of employment is concluded with only one defendant, and all evidence (including payment of salary and unemployment insurance documentation) points to only that defendant as the employer, a claim seeking joint and several liability against another defendant who is not party to the employment relationship and with whom no employment relationship is pleaded discloses no cause of action. Similarly, a claim for salary payment against a defendant who is not shown to be an employer, when full salary has been received from the actual employer, is bad in law and discloses no cause of action. Defendants are entitled to raise exceptions to amended pleadings that fail to disclose a cause of action, and are not precluded from doing so merely because they raised similar grounds against earlier versions of the pleadings.
The court observed that the plaintiff may have a valid claim against the first defendant for accrued leave pay, though this was not the subject of the defendants' exception. The court emphasized that exceptions serve an important purpose and should not be raised merely as technicalities, as doing so would defeat their purpose of weeding out legally meritless claims and protecting defendants from embarrassment. The court noted that the reference to "Finance Controller (Proto & PCCSA)" in the employment contract, while mentioning abbreviations that might relate to both companies, did not itself establish a joint employment relationship or joint liability in the absence of other pleaded facts supporting such a relationship.
This case clarifies important principles regarding exceptions in labour proceedings, particularly: (1) the requirements for establishing joint and several liability against multiple defendants in employment claims; (2) the necessity of pleading facts that establish an employment relationship before claiming employment-related benefits; (3) that defendants are not precluded from raising exceptions to amended pleadings even if similar grounds were raised to original pleadings; (4) the proper application of exception principles requiring that claims must disclose a cause of action ex facie the pleadings. The case reinforces that while exceptions should be dealt with sensibly and not merely as technicalities, courts will strike out claims that fundamentally lack legal merit regardless of whether they arise in labour proceedings.