Mogagabe AJ Rules on Mlisa v SANSA: Contract Repudiated, Damages Unsubstantiated

In the case of Mlisa v South African National Space Agency, Gauteng Division, Pretoria's High Court has delivered a mixed judgment on a contentious employment contract dispute. Andiswa Mlisa, the applicant, took SANSA to court after the agency terminated her fixed-term contract. The court declared that the termination indeed accounted for a repudiation of the contract by SANSA. Despite this finding, Mlisa's claim for contractual damages amounting to approximately R6.5 million plus accruing annual leave pay was not granted due to insufficient evidence provided to substantiate the claim.

The complex case hinged on the interpretation of SANSA's decision to end Mlisa’s contract following a ministerial directive that required prior consent from the National Treasury for changes to the agency’s organizational structure. The board hitherto had moved forward with implementing a new business model which included Mlisa’s appointment as Executive: Commercial Services. This action prompted Mlisa to file the claim against SANSA, arguing for breach and repudiation of her employment contract.

The case showcased SANSA's reliance on Sections 9(3) and 15(2)(c) of the SANSA Act, which the court found did not apply to their alteration of the organizational structure. This, alongside SANSA’s failure to follow procedural due process in terminating Mlisa’s contract, constituted repudiation of the employment contract. Nevertheless, the court found Mlisa's evidence on the computation of claimed damages lacking in specificity and consequently dismissed this part of her claim.

In delivering judgment, Acting Judge Mogagabe highlighted that the court could only award damages if there was a detailed and appropriate calculation of the alleged loss — something Mlisa did not provide. The judge pointed out that while the court had discretion to award damages in lieu of specific performance, such awards must be based on clear evidence, not approximation or speculation.

The ruling serves as a crucial reminder of the intrication of labour law and the importance of substantiating claims for damages. This case underscores the necessity for employers to strictly adhere to statutory and contractual requirements when making employment-related decisions, as well as the imperative for claimants to present concrete evidence when seeking damages for breach of contract.