Skip to main content

Article 62/2022

What is the approach to be adopted to resolve disputes of fact in motion proceedings?

_____________________________________

The test formulated in Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd 1984 (3) SA 623 (A), and so applied in Thebe Ya Bophelo Healthcare Administrators v National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight Industry 2009 (3) SA 187 (W) amounts to the following:

  • the facts stated by the respondent, together with the admitted or undisputed facts in the applicant’s affidavit, provide the factual basis for a finding
  • the above position is applicable unless the court is justified in rejecting the respondent’s version on any one or more of the following grounds:
  • the dispute is not real or genuine (on the basis of a bare denial) or
  • the denials in the respondent’s version of bald and uncreditworthy (Wightman t/a JA Construction v Headfour (Pty) Ltd and Another 2008 (3) SA 371 (SCA)) or
  • the respondent’s version raises obvious fictitious disputes of fact or
  • the respondent’s version is palpably implausible or farfetched or so clearly untenable that the court is justified in rejecting that version

See, further, National Scrap Metal (Cape Town) v Murray & Roberts 2012 (5) SA 300 (SCA)

September 28, 2026

What are the principles governing common purpose misconduct?

September 21, 2026

What are the principles governing an employee’s duty to disclose to his/her employer information about misconduct?

September 14, 2026

In Article 31, we dealt with the distinction between desertion and abscondment.

In Article 32, we dealt with the misconduct of deeming desertion.

In this article, we will deal with termination of employment by operation of law in the private sector – similar to deeming to be discharged in the public sector.