A former employee of Nedbank instituted a R45 million damages claim against the bank and Sun City, after a video of him allegedly being unruly during a golfing championship event was circulated.

Erwin Meth also turned to the Johannesburg Labour Court to have a mutual separation agreement (MSA) between him and the bank overturned, as he claimed he had signed the agreement under duress.

Nedbank and Sun International, as the owners of Sun City, objected to the statements made in his summons against them, as they argued it was vague and lacked essential allegations of any wrongdoing on their behalf.

The labour court, in ruling in favour of the bank and Sun City, noted that Meth’s lawyer drafted his application poorly. This means that he will either have to abandon the claim or have to go back to the drawing board if he wants to proceed with his claim, as the court had set the claim aside.

In his original summons, Meth stated that during the tenure of his employment with Nedbank, he had an affair with another person, who was married at the time. The affair was apparently kept secret for a while after which it was discovered by others and became common knowledge amongst the employees of Nedbank. Meth alleged that as a result of his affair, he was victimised, discriminated against and harassed at work.

He stated that while still working for Nedbank, he travelled to Sun City’s resort during the Nedbank Golf Challenge. He stayed with his lover who was there in an official capacity. During the course of his stay there, Meth was apparently involved in numerous arguments with third parties, including Sun City staff, and damaged Sun City’s property. Sun City had footage of the relevant incident and shared this footage with Nedbank.

According to Meth, by sharing the footage with Nedbank, Sun City has violated his constitutional rights and is jointly liable with Nedbank for the damages he had suffered, to the tune of R45 million. Nedbank meanwhile sought to discipline Meth following his conduct. The court was told that Meth agreed to terminate his employment and concluded the MSA with Nedbank.

He now, however, claims that the conclusion of the MSA was actuated by duress or undue influence, and is therefore invalid. He also contends that Nedbank is in breach of the MSA, in breach of the Public Disclosures Act and its own policies.

“The statement of claim does not disclose a valid cause of action. On a generous interpretation, it may disclose some vague claim for damages. However; it is trite law that a party wishing to claim damages resulting from a breach of contract must allege the terms of the contract, breach of the contract, damages and a causal link between the breach and damages,” Acting Judge R Bhima said.

The court, in also ruling in favour of Sun City’s objections, commented that it is unclear from the pleading why Sun City owed the plaintiff a duty of care and if it did, how it breached this duty.

Judge Bhima noted that Meth was legally represented by attorneys and counsel and the statement of claim emanated from an attorney. “It was however so badly drafted that there can be no finding other than the upholding of the exceptions. It is impossible to discern what claim in law is made against the defendants,” the judge said.

zelda.venter@inl.co.za

Source link