Khumalo v Kansai Plascon (Pty) Ltd and Others [2026] ZALCD 3

Court: Labour Court of South Africa, Durban

Judge: Seery AJ

Date of Delivery: 28 January 2026

Factual Matrix

The applicant referred an unfair labour practice dispute concerning a "shift agreement" and "standby policy" and claiming payment of allowances. The arbitrator found the bargaining council lacked jurisdiction. The applicant later referred the same dispute under a new case number, which was also found to lack jurisdiction. The applicant then launched a review application of the first award. Subsequently, on 9 June 2025, the applicant and respondent concluded a Voluntary Retrenchment Agreement (VRA) containing full and final settlement clauses waiving all claims relating to employment.

Reasoning for the Finding

"[8] Certain clauses of the agreement...have a direct bearing on the proceedings before this court: 8.2 Clause 16 – FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT. 8.4 Clause 16.2 – the payments made and the benefits afforded to the applicant in terms of the agreement 'shall be in full and final settlement of all or any claims of any nature whatsoever that the(applicant)... may have against the(first respondent)... and the(applicant) waives any claims/ rights he may have in this regard'." [para 8]

"[10] The applicant challenged the first respondent's contention, on the following five grounds: 10.1 That the VRA made no specific reference to the review application presently before the court: In this court's view, the express wording of the VRA covers all claims of whatever nature relating to the applicant's employment with the first respondent. Particular reference to this review application was not required." [para 10]

"[11] On the plain wording of the VRA, the applicant's review application falls squarely within the category of matters that the applicant agreed to waive his right to pursue. There is no clause that preserves the applicant's right to pursue this particular review that is the subject of these proceedings." [para 11]

"[12] The applicant elected, when concluding the VRA, to abandon his right to pursue his review application. The conclusion of the VRA extinguishes the applicant's underlying dispute and constitutes a complete defense to subsequent litigation(such as this review) concerning the same subject matter." [para 12]

Finding/Order

1. The review application was dismissed.

2. No order in respect of costs.

The Court held that the VRA constituted a complete defence to the review application, rendering it unnecessary to determine the condonation application or the merits of the review.