THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Case no: 685/2013
Reportable

In the matter between:

GREATER TZANEEN MUNICIPALITY                                                       Appellant

and

ANDRE JEAN JACQUES LE GRANGE                                                   Respondent

Neutral citation: Greater Tzaneen Municipality v Le Grange (685/2013)  [2015]
ZASCA 17 (18 March 2015)

Coram:               Brand, Leach, Willis, Zondi JJA and Dambuza AJA

Heard:                 23 February 2015

Delivered:          18 March 2015

Summary: Jurisdiction – an undertaking to employ in a contract is not a matter
falling within the purview of s 157 of the Labour Relations Act. – the high court has
jurisdiction – rectification – on the evidence the contract was not truly reflective of the
intention of the parties and agreement properly rectified.

____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
___________________________________________________________________
On appeal from: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria (Hiemstra AJ sitting as court
of first instance):
‘The appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs of the application
for an interdict’.
__________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
__________________________________________________________________

Dambuza AJ (Brand, Leach, Willis and Zondi JJA concurring):
[1] This appeal is with the leave of this court, against the judgment of the North
Gauteng High Court, Pretoria (Hiemstra AJ), dismissing an application by the
appellant (municipality) to have the respondent (Mr Le Grange) interdicted from
accessing the municipal premises as an employee of the municipality. The court a
quo also rectified an agreement concluded between the municipality and Mr Le
Grange. Before us counsel for the municipality informed us that the interdict
originally sought by the municipality had become academic and that the
municipality was abandoning its appeal and tendering costs in so far as it related
to that issue. What remained for determination was the appeal against rectification
of the agreement.

[2] The agreement at the centre of the dispute between the parties, was
concluded on 9 April 2010. Prior to the conclusion of the agreement Mr Le Grange
had been employed by the municipality as the ‘Head: Section Finance
Expenditure’. He had been employed by the municipality for the 17 years
preceding the conclusion of the agreement. In terms of the agreement Mr Le
Grange took up employment with the municipality as the chief financial officer
(CFO) for a period of three years, starting from 1 December 2009 until 30 June
2012. Upon the expiry of the three year period, Mr Le Grange continued to present
himself at the premises of the municipality, insisting that the municipality had an
obligation to keep him in his employ.

[3] The municipality denied that it was obliged to employ Mr Le Grange.
Instead, on 7 July 2012, the municipality approached the high court, on an urgent
basis, seeking an order that Mr Le Grange be interdicted from accessing the
municipal premises as an employee of the municipality and that he be ordered to
return the access cards with which he had been provided as an employee. The
municipality contended that Mr Le Grange’s right to access the municipality
premises as an employee of the municipality ceased when the term of his
employment as CFO of the municipality expired.

[4] Mr Le Grange opposed the application brought by the municipality and
asserted his right of continued presence at the municipal premises. He relied on a
portion of clause 2.3 of the agreement which, he contended, entitled him to a
further contract of employment with the municipality. He brought a counter-
application in which he sought to enforce his right to a contract of that kind. He
also sought rectification of the agreement in terms more fully set out in the
paragraphs that follow.

[5] The high court dismissed the application for an interdict, holding that no
authorisation for institution of the court proceedings by the municipality had been
shown. It then granted an order for rectification of the agreement and found that on
expiry of Mr Le Grange’s term of employment as CFO, the municipality was
obliged to employ him as provided in the rectified agreement.

[6] It was not in dispute, both before the high court and in this court, that in its
original form, and as signed by Mr Le Grange, clause 2.3 of the agreement
provided that:
‘2.3
It is specifically recorded that there is no expectation that this Contract will be
renewed or extended beyond the term referred to in clause 2.2 [the three year term]. The
Employer’s decision not to renew or extend the contract shall not constitute an unfair
dismissal and the Employee shall not be entitled to any form of compensation.
2.3.1 However, during the discussions with the Mayor regarding the short period of the
Contract, it was agreed that the Employer, in the case of non-renewal or extension of this
contract will endeavour to suitably accommodate the Employee in a permanent position
on the service register that fits his status, qualifications and experience.’ (My emphasis.)

[7] The order for rectification of the agreement provided for replacement of the
word ‘endeavour’ in clause 2.3.1 with the words ‘be obliged’. It was common cause
that, about a month into Mr Le Grange’s term of employment as CFO, Mr
Mangena, the municipal manager at the time, deleted clause 2.3.1 from a copy of
the agreement and signed that copy on behalf of the municipality (on 19 April
2010).

[8] Subsequent to the deletion of clause 2.3.1 there was an exchange of
correspondence between Mr Le Grange (through his attorneys) and the
municipality on the propriety of the deletion of the clause. Essentially, Mr Le
Grange maintained that he had concluded an agreement with the municipality in
the terms set out in the original agreement. He also lodged a grievance with the
Mayor protesting the purported amendment to the agreement. The dispute
remained unresolved until the expiry of Mr Le Grange’s term of employment as the
chief financial officer (CFO).

[9] The appeal against rectification is premised, mainly, upon two grounds. The
municipality contends, first, that Mr Le Grange had failed to establish that when
the agreement was concluded both parties were labouring under a common
mistake. Its second contention was that because the remedy sought by Mr Le
Grange is founded in the provisions of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA),
the high court (and this court) had no jurisdiction to entertain the counter-
application. This submission extended to an argument that employment to the
position(s) contemplated by Mr Le Grange required approval of the municipal
council which had not been obtained prior to the conclusion of the agreement and
therefore the agreement was illegal and unenforceable. For that reason it could
not be rectified. Although the high court did not pertinently consider the issue of
jurisdiction, it is expedient that I deal with it before considering the other grounds
on which the appeal is founded.

[10] Jurisdiction
The contention that the high court had no jurisdiction to hear Mr Le Grange’s
complaint was foreshadowed, rather obliquely, in the municipality’s founding
affidavit. The allegation was that, rather than repeatedly presenting himself at the

municipal offices and disturbing the peace, Mr Le Grange should have approached
the labour court to assert his claim for ‘reinstatement’. In the answering affidavit,
Mr Le Grange denied that he sought re-instatement and explained that his claim
was for specific performance of a term of an agreement. Counsel for the
municipality persisted before us that in terms of s 77(3) of the Basic Conditions of
Employment Act1 (the BCEA), only the labour court had jurisdiction to hear the
claim brought by Mr Le Grange as the claim was founded on s 186(2)(c) of the
LRA.2 The argument was that Mr Le Grange’s case was essentially one of unfair
labour practice by the municipality in refusing to reinstate him to employment. This
is incorrect.

[11] First, the provisions of the LRA did not arise in this case. The remedy
sought by Mr Le Grange was not ‘re-instatement’ to a position previously held with
the municipality; nor did he seek renewal of the expired agreement. What he
sought was specific performance of clause 2.3.1 of the agreement as reflected in
the declaratory order. In Gcaba v Minister for Safety and Security 2010 (1) SA 238
(CC) the Constitutional Court explained the basis on which the nature of issues
raised in proceedings must be determined. That court held that jurisdiction is
determined on the basis of the pleadings and not on the substantive merits of the
case. Mr Le Grange had pleaded, as the relief he sought, the common law remedy
of specific performance, based on the fact that the municipality was obliged, in
terms of the agreement, to employ him after 30 June 2012. The fact that the relief
sought related to employment did not necessarily mean that it was rooted in the
provisions of the LRA. And the fact that Mr Le Grange had been employed by the
municipality prior to 30 June 2012 did not mean that he was seeking re-
instatement. In Makhanya v University of Zululand 2010 (1) SA 62 (SCA) this court
held that:
‘When a claimant says that the claim arises from the infringement of the common-law right
to enforce a contract, then that is the claim, as a fact, and the court must deal with it
accordingly. When a claimant says that the claim is to enforce a right that is created by
the LRA, then that is the claim that the court has before it, as a fact. When he or she says

1 Basic Conditions of Employment Act 75 of 1997.
2 Section 186 of the LRA deals with the meaning of dismissal and unfair labour practice. Section
191 provides that if there is a dispute about the fairness of a dismissal or a dispute about an unfair
labour practice the dismissed employee or the employee alleging an unfair labour practice may
refer the dispute in writing for conciliation or arbitration.

that the claim is to enforce a right derived from the Constitution, then, as a fact, that is the
claim. That the claim might be a bad claim is beside the point.’3

[12] Further, even if Mr Le Grange was seeking reinstatement, s 77(3) of the
BCEA on which the municipality relied (perhaps unwittingly), provides that:
‘The Labour Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the civil courts to hear and determine
any matter concerning a contract of employment, irrespective of whether any basic
condition of employment constitutes a term of that contract.’
In Gcaba4 the Constitutional Court clarified the issue concerning the overlap in
jurisdiction of the labour court and the high court in respect of employment matters
by explaining that the labour court has exclusive jurisdiction over those matters
which the LRA prescribes should be determined by it.5 That court, however,
endorsed the concurrency of jurisdiction between the two courts6 but warned that s
157(2) should not be understood to extend the jurisdiction of the high court to
determine issues which, in terms of s 157(1) of the LRA, fall exclusively under the
jurisdiction of the Labour Court.7

[13] In this case the municipality brought its application for an interdict in the
high court. In its founding affidavit it set out what it considered to be the relevant
portion(s) of the agreement as the ‘background facts to the application’. It pleaded
that because the agreement had expired, Mr Le Grange’s right to access the
municipal premises as an employee had ceased. The defence tendered by Mr Le
Grange was, in essence, that the agreement went beyond the terms set out in the
founding affidavit; it also regulated certain rights and obligations of the parties after
30 June 2012. Therefore, even if Mr Le Grange’s claim had been founded in the
LRA it would not have been acceptable for the municipality to plead that Mr Le
Grange be directed to approach the labour court. Such a course would result in an

3 At 82G-I at 71G-I.
4 Supra, paras 70 – 72.
5 S157(1) of LRA. Such matters include review of arbitration awards in terms of s 145 of the LRA and
those regulated by s 186 of the LRA.
6 S157(2) of the LRA provides that: ‘The Labour Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court
in respect of any alleged or threatened violation of any fundamental right entrenched in Chapter 2 of
the Constitution of Republic of South Africa, 1996, and arising from –
(a) Employment and from labour relations;
(b) any dispute over constitutionality of any executive or administrative act or conduct,. . . by the
State in its capacity as an employer; and
(c) the application of any law for the administration of which the Minister is responsible’.
7 At 261D-E

undesirable duplication of proceedings in which essentially the same disputes
would arise. The contention that Mr Le Grange should have approached the labour
court was therefore misplaced.

[14] Rectification
In granting the order for rectification, the high court found that Mr Le Grange had
proved that both him and the municipality had intended that the municipality be
obliged to offer employment to Mr Le Grange on expiry of his term of employment
as chief financial officer. The challenge against the finding of the high court was
based on two grounds: that Mr Le Grange had failed to prove a mistake common
to both parties at the time of the conclusion of the agreement and that the
agreement fell foul of certain statutory requirements and was therefore illegal and
could not be rectified. I start with the last.

[15] The contention by the municipality was that the agreement could not be
rectified as it was tainted by an underlying illegality in that it was concluded with
the mayor who lacked the necessary power to do so. This argument on behalf of
the municipality was based on an assumption that Mr Le Grange sought to be
employed to a position regulated by s 57 of the Local Government: Municipal
Systems Act 32 of 2000. This section regulates the terms of employment contracts
for municipal managers and managers directly accountable to municipal
managers. In terms of s 56 of the same Act, municipal managers and managers
directly accountable to the municipal manager must be appointed by the municipal
council in consultation with the municipal manager.

[16] This description of Mr Le Grange’s case was wrong on three fronts. It was
not Mr Le Grange’s case that the agreement was that he would be employed to a
s 57 position; he also did not seek employment to such a position. His case was
that the municipality had undertaken to employ him in a ‘permanent position on the
service register that fits his status, qualification and experience’. All that he sought
was to be employed as agreed. In fact, the evidence was that on expiry of his term
as the CFO he had demanded to be employed in a position similar or the one he
had occupied prior to the conclusion of the agreement. By all accounts such
position was not a s 57 position.

[17] It was also not Mr Le Grange’s case that he had concluded the agreement
with the mayor. His case had always been that the agreement was concluded with
the council. The agreement reflects that to have been the case. The fact that he
had held discussions with the mayor relating to the agreement is irrelevant.
Therefore the argument that the agreement was unenforceable did not assist the
municipality.

[18] In the end, whether the agreement was eligible for rectification fell to be
determined on whether the evidence tendered proved that the agreement, in
particular, clause 2.3.1, was not a correct recordal of the true agreement between
Mr Le Grange and the municipality. In essence the enquiry was whether use of the
word ‘endeavour’ in clause 2.3.1 was due to a mistaken understanding of the
meaning thereof by both parties, as Mr Le Grange contended.

[19] The municipality insisted that the determination of the intention of the
parties had to be limited to the word ‘endeavour’ as used in the agreement without
recourse to the background against which the agreement was concluded. On the
wording of the agreement, the municipality was only obliged to endeavour to
employ Mr Le Grange, so it was argued. This interpretation of the agreement
impermissibly isolates the word ‘endeavour’ from the rest of clause 2.3.1. The
clause sets out the background and motivation for the agreement to employ Mr Le
Grange in a permanent position after 30 June 2012. In addition Mr Le Grange
tendered further evidence in respect of the background to the conclusion of the
agreement. The evidence was to the effect that it was Mr Le Grange and Mr
Visser, the municipality’s human resource manager at the time, who prepared the
agreement. In his affidavit, filed in support of Mr Le Grange, Mr Visser explained
that when Mr Le Grange was recommended for the position of CFO, he (Mr Le
Grange) advised the municipal council that he would accept the position on
condition he was ‘provided with security that he would not be without an
appointment/work after 30 June 2012’. It was on this basis that Mr Visser was
instructed to draft the agreement. He explained that the word ‘endeavour’ was
used as a translation for the Afrikaans word ‘onderneem’, which both he and Mr Le
Grange, being Afrikaans speaking, had intended to use in the agreement.

[20] Both Mr Le Grange and Mr Visser highlighted in their evidence that, at the
discussions relating to the three year CFO position, Mr Le Grange had insisted on
protecting the security of his long term employment with the municipality. This
evidence is consistent with the inclusion of clause 2.3.1 in the agreement.8 As
against this evidence, the municipality tendered the evidence of Mr Thulani Twala,
the municipal manager who took office at some stage subsequent to Mr Mangena.
Mr Twala denied that the use of the word ‘endeavour’ was a mistake. However, Mr
Twala did not set out the basis on which he could attest to the facts relating to the
conclusion of the agreement. There was no evidence indicating that he was
present at any stage during the negotiations relating to the conclusion of the
agreement.

[21] On the evidence before the high court, Mr Twala could only have hearsay
knowledge about the terms on which the agreement was concluded. There was no
evidence tendered on behalf of the municipality, by a person who was privy to the
negotiations. The high court could only determine the true intention of the parties
on credible evidence before it. Only the evidence of Mr Le Grange and Mr Visser
was properly before the high court and the finding of that court, that the use of the
word ‘endeavour’ was attributable to an erroneous translation of the Afrikaans
word ‘onderneem’ by Mr Le Grange and Mr Visser, was properly made. A proper
case for rectification had been made and the declarator was correctly granted.
Consequently the appeal must fail.

[23] In the result, the following order is made:
‘The appeal is dismissed with costs’.

______________
N Dambuza
Acting Judge of Appeal

8 The evidence was that it was only after an (unspecified) inquiry was made by ‘National Treasury
regarding the clause that Mr Mangena deleted it. Although in the correspondence following from
the deletion of clause 2.3.1, the municipal (through Mr Mangena) disputed that the clause had been
properly included in the agreement, in its replying papers to the counter-application it disavowed Mr
Mangena’s attempts at altering the agreement, by deletion of the clause. It only contended that Mr
Le Grange’s interpretation of the clause as entitling him to ‘remain’ in the employment of the
municipality was incorrect as the clause only compelled the municipality to ‘endeavour’ to employ
Mr Le Grange. The argument was that Mr Le Grange had not proved that the municipality had
failed to meet its obligation to ‘endeavour’ to employ him.’

APPEARANCES
For Appellant:

GN Moshoana
Instructed by:
Mushoana Inc, Pretoria
Lovius Block Attorneys, Bloemfontein

For Respondent:

JS Stone

Instructed by:
Kruger Nagel & De Jager Attorneys,
Tzaneen
Bezuidenhouts Attorneys, Bloemfontein

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

FROM

The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

DATE

18 March 2015

STATUS

Immediate

Please note that the media summary is for the benefit of the media and does not form part of
the judgment.

Greater Tzaneen Municipality v Andre Jean Jacques Le Grange (685/2013) [2015]
ZASCA 17

MEDIA STATEMENT

Today the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) dismissed the appeal by the Greater Tzaneen
Municipality (the appellant) and upheld an order of the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, that the
municipality is obliged to employ the respondent, Mr Le Grange

The two issues before the SCA were (i) whether the high court had jurisdiction to hear a matter
concerning a contractual agreement to employ a person, or whether such jurisdiction was excluded
by s 157 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (LRA) and (ii) whether the high court was correct in
ordering the rectification of the contract in question and declaring that the municipality was obliged to
employ Mr Le Grange..

Mr Le Grange, entered into an employment contract with the Greater Tzaneen Municipality (the
municipality), in terms of which he would be employed as the municipality‟s chief financial officer for
three years, and upon expiration of this period the municipality would „endeavour to suitably
accommodate [Mr Le Grange] in a permanent position on [its] service register....‟  Upon the expiry of
the three year period, the municipality refused to re-employ Mr Le Grange, and applied to the high
court for an order interdicting him from accessing the municipal premises as an employee.  Mr Le
Grange opposed this interdict on the basis that the municipality was obligated to re-employ him, and
brought a counter-application in which he sought to assert his right to be re-employed and to rectify
the contract in question by replacing, in the contract, the word “endeavour” with “be obliged”.  The
basis for the rectification was that during the negotiation of the contract it was understood by all
involved that in view of the 17 years he had already spent working for the municipality, Mr Le Grange

required secure employment following the three year period. Both Mr Le Grange and the drafter of the
contract (the municipality‟s human resource manager) had been under the mistaken belief that the
word „endeavour‟ in fact entailed an obligation; as they both believed that it was the correct translation
for the Afrikaans word „onderneem‟ (which is closer to „undertake‟).

The high court dismissed the municipality‟s application for the interdict,  granted Mr Le Grange‟s order
for rectification of the agreement, and declared that the municipality was obliged to employ him.

Before the SCA, the municipality argued that the high court had lacked jurisdiction to hear Mr Le
Grange‟s complaint because he was essentially requesting a re-instatement, which was a labour
matter that could only be brought before the labour court.  The SCA rejected this submission on the
basis that the remedy sought by Mr Le Grange was specific performance of a contractual term and
was not based on any provisions of the LRA.  In addition, the provision of the Basic Conditions of
Employment Act 75 of 1997 (BCEA) relied upon by the municipality specifically allowed for concurrent
jurisdiction of the labour and civil courts in matters of employment contracts.

The municipality further argued that the order for rectification should not have been granted on the
basis that (i) the rectification would result in the contract being in conflict with the Local Government:
Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 (MSA) and (ii) that Mr Le Grange had failed to prove that the word
„endeavour‟ inaccurately reflected the intentions of the parties.  The SCA rejected both arguments.  It
held that the MSA only applied in respect of certain municipal posts, which were not relevant in this
matter.  And the municipality had failed to tender any valid first-hand evidence to contradict the
background circumstances and context of the contractual negotiations presented by Mr Le Grange.
Accordingly, the SCA held that the high court had properly granted the order for rectification.

-- ends ---