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 7, 2026

The previous article dealt with the distinction between misconduct constituting desertion and misconduct constituting abscondment – see, further, in this regard, Okhahlamba Local Municipality v Mabuya (2021) 32 SALLR 12 (LC).

In this article, what we attempt to do is provide some clarity as to a very different misconduct, namely, the misconduct of deeming desertion.

August 31, 2026

What is the difference between desertion and abscondment?

August 17, 2026

We think that everyone understands that an employer is vicariously liable for the wrong committed (an act or omission) by its employee during the course/scope/sphere of employment/engagement in any activity reasonably incidental to it.

But, what is the extent of an employer’s vicarious liability where the employee commits a wrong on his or her own volition?