Bokamoso Private Hospital survives lawsuit

Tumelo Mouwane | Thursday February 25, 2016 17:15

 

Knab sued the hospital alleging that he was unlawfully dismissed in 2012 following his suspension. He told the court that he entered into a contract of employment with the hospital and was employed as specialist anaesthesiologists for 36 months. He was dismissed before the end of the contract.

Knab claimed payment of the amount of P6.8 million being damages for unfair dismissal and compensation in the amount of P1 million.

Delivering ruling yesterday, Justice Godfrey Radijeng said Knab did not set out the material factors that would have qualified him as an employee of the said hospital.

“The plaintiff in my view did not set out the material factors that would qualify him as an employee of the defendant. These are factors such as collection of tax or pay as you earn by the defendant on his behalf as is required by law. In respect of the latter issue of salary and other remuneration or benefit, the plaintiff’s evidence was that he was to receive and or was paid for professional fees following services rendered,” the judge said.

He added that the plaintiff (Knab) gave evidence that he requested or elected that his professional fees be paid to his company: Anaesthesia Specialists (Pty) Ltd.

Justice Radijeng said after calling three witnesses to support his case, Knab abandoned his other claim for P800,000 arising from a salary for 20 months. He said the witnesses contradicted his claim. “The plaintiff’s evidence was rebutted by his second witness, being the human resource manager of the defendant who confirmed to the court that the plaintiff was not an employee and that no salary or any remuneration was accrued to him from the defendant,” Radijeng said.

He further said the doctor’s (Knab) evidence ‘negated’ essence of the existence of a contract of employer and employee in so far as essential aspects of such contract were concerned. “In summary the defendant has argued that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff negates the existence of contract of employment between the parties and argued that the plaintiff was an independent contractor as per the plaintiff’s evidence.

The defendant contends that the plaintiff’s evidence is contradictory,” said Justice Radijeng. The judge granted absolution of the defendant from the instance with costs.

He said the evidence led by the plaintiff was not convincing that the plaintiff and the defendant’s relationship did not prove existence of a relationship of employer and employee.

“Further and assuming I am wrong on this finding the plaintiff has not in my view provided or satisfied the essential factors for the court to reasonably find that he was an employee of the defendant,” he said.