Pay ex-Marapong Trust workers exit package, rules court

Tebogo Kgalemang
Correspondent | Tuesday June 28, 2011 00:00

Delivering the judgement, Justice Modiri Letsididi ruled that the applicants - Keatlholetswe Mukani, Ogolotse Nthoiwa, Lebogelang Letsholathebe and Mama Morapedi - are entitled to the exit package.

'The applicants are entitled to payment of the exit package as proposed by the respondent in terms of the special board meeting held on September 21, 2009,' said Letsididi. 'The respondent shall forthwith pay the applicants the full benefits as agreed to and in terms of the special full board meeting,' he added.

The facts of the case are that when the dissolution took place, the government and the Trust agreed that the employees would transform and become civil servants in terms of the Public Service Act (Cap 26.01).

On September 21, 2009, the respondent's Board of Trustee held a meeting at which it was resolved that the applicants would be paid an exit package equivalent to six months pay. The court heard that the applicants were lately offered a revised exit package of P5,000 stating that it was made as a token of appreciation.

In October last year, after a period of haggling, the applicants filed an application to the High Court, seeking a declaratory order. The order sought that the respondent pay them their exit package in terms of the offer given to them on September 21, 2009.

Applicants contended that there was a legally binding contract between them and the respondent on the letter dated September 21. The respondent, however, has admitted that there was an offer made and accepted by the applicants, but contended that it was not a commercial agreement in the manner suggested by the applicants.

So, they further argued that they had the power to change the decision provided the applicants were consulted.

The judge said accordingly there was created, between the parties, a binding contract. He said the respondent could therefore not be seen to unilaterally resile from the terms of this contract. Justice Letsididi further dismissed the respondent's allegation that the refusal to abide by this agreement was that there was a consultation with the applicants to justify the revocation of the agreement as it was denied by the applicants. The applicants have categorically denied being party to it or accepting such a revocation.

The judge stated that if there were any changes, the applicants had to at least be given an opportunity to be heard. 'The respondent's failure to grant the applicants an opportunity to be heard prior to changing the initial offer meant that the applicants expectation to be paid six months salary as their exit package was legitimate.'

'For this reason I come to the conclusion that the application must succeed,' explained Justice Letsididi.