Quarrying Enterprises Private Limited v Cornelius Abraham Smit and Zachary Dylan Smit

The first respondent was employed by the applicant as managing director in 2005, and the second respondent as mine manager. The respondents were dismissed from employment and appealed to the Labour Court. The applicant demanded the return of two motor vehicles (a Mitsubishi Pajero registration number ACA 9480 and a Toyota Landcruiser pick-up truck registration number ABO 8962) on 6 February 2015, which belonged to the applicant as evidenced by registration books. The respondents failed to surrender the vehicles. The Labour Court dismissed the respondents' appeal against their dismissal for being defective and not properly before it. The respondents claimed the applicant was a family business and alleged they were deposed in a "boardroom coup" by Italian nationals, but continued to retain the company vehicles.

• Whether an employee whose contract of employment has been terminated and who has appealed to the Labour Court is entitled to retain a motor vehicle allocated for performance of duties pending resolution of the appeal
• Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant relief to an employer under the rei vindicatio in circumstances where employment has been terminated
• Whether the respondents have a claim of right capable of defeating the applicant's vindicatory action for recovery of the motor vehicles

The court ordered that: (1) The respondents or any person in possession of the vehicles be directed to surrender the Toyota Landcruiser registration ABO8962 and Mitsubishi Pajero registration ACA 9480 to the Deputy Sheriff upon service of the order; (2) In the event of non-compliance, the Deputy Sheriff is authorized to seize and attach such property and hand it over to the applicant; (3) The respondents shall pay costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Section 89(6) of the Labour Act does not abrogate the right of an employer to approach the High Court seeking civil relief based on pure principles of civil law, except for those applications specifically provided for in the Labour Act; (2) Applications for the common law remedy of rei vindicatio fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the High Court, not the Labour Court; (3) In a rei vindicatio action, an owner seeking to recover property from a person in possession without consent need only prove ownership and possession by the defendant; (4) A claim of right capable of defeating a rei vindicatio must arise from the terms of the contract of employment and must be a specific contractual right to retain the property; (5) Once a contract of employment has been lawfully terminated, an employee has no continuing right to retain company property allocated for performance of employment duties, unless a specific contractual right of retention exists.

The court made critical observations about the conduct of legal practitioners, noting that "not surprisingly given the conduct of legal practitioners these days, we were asked to provide written reasons for holding this view, for purposes of appeal." The court expressed hope that "litigants and their legal representatives take the time to acquaint themselves with the guidance coming from the Supreme Court," emphasizing that guidance on these issues had already been given by the Supreme Court in materially similar cases. The court also commented that "a court ought to be careful not to read a legal right into a policy matter which is for the discretion of the employer" and that any right to purchase company property could only arise after an offer had been made and accepted, not before. The court observed that the respondents were "operating under the legal misapprehension" regarding the status of their employment termination.

This case reinforces the High Court's jurisdiction to hear rei vindicatio claims arising from employment relationships, clarifying that the Labour Court's jurisdiction under section 89 of the Labour Act does not oust the High Court's jurisdiction for common law civil remedies. It affirms that terminated employees have no automatic right to retain company property merely because they have appealed their dismissal, unless there is a specific contractual right of retention. The case demonstrates the courts' willingness to impose higher costs on litigants who persist with unmeritorious claims on issues already settled by higher courts, particularly where litigants resort to self-help by retaining employer property after lawful termination.