1
UDI
PME?
7 is :
Z ‘ s
ee) New 77 kg
<> BS
LOFSOGS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: NO.
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO.
(3) REVISED.
2025-07-15 ;
DATE SIGNATUR
Case Number: 84098/2019
In the matter between:
ILLANA MARAIS Plaintiff
and
RENAULT SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD Defendant
This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and
is handed down electronically by circulation to the Parties/their legal representatives
by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines. The
date for handing down is deemed to be 15 July 2025.
JUDGMENT
2
POTTERILL J
Introduction
[1] The plaintiff [Ms Marais] was on 1 July 2016 permanently appointed as a call
centre agent by the defendant, Renault South Africa Pty Ltd [Renault]. On 3 May 2019
Ms Marais’ employment was terminated pursuant to a disciplinary hearing. She is
seeking a globular amount of R10 million in damages from Renault based on two
claims. There is no differentiation as to what amount is claimed for each claim.
[2] The first claim is based on the Protected Disclosures Act 26 of 2000 [the PDA]
in that she had made two protected disclosures. The first was in September 2017 to
Renault's HR Manager and to the office of the Managing Director. This disclosure
entailed the alleged impropriety in the workplace of an “illicit affair’ between Ms
Mariais’ manager, Mr Paul Patjie, and another sales consultant. The affair led to Mr
Patjie allocating sales commission incorrectly and prejudicing other members of the
sales staff but, in particular Mr Marais. The particulars of claim averred that due to this
disclosure Ms Marais was subjected to discriminatory treatment that could be
ascertained form Renault's refusal to support her in the purchase of a company car
and being threatened with dismissal if she did not return to work when she took sick
leave in October 2017. She was refused a company car and a study subsidy.
Furthermore, she was accused of misconduct, suspended without being afforded an
opportunity to provide reasons why she should not be suspended and was subjected
to a biased disciplinary proceeding and issued with a final warning. Moreover she was
subjected to unlawful commission deductions.
[3] The second averred protected disclosure was made verbally on 12 December
2018 to the HR Manager in which she raised concerns of racial utterances by her new
manager, Mr Phonnie Cilliers. In an email to Renault's MD, Mr Oosthuizen, she alleged
that Mr Cilliers made racial utterances to her to the effect that “she is a coloured
woman, and therefore committed theft like the previous employee...” This previous
employee was also coloured.
[4] | These disclosures were made in good faith, substantially in accordance with
the grievance procedures prescribed and in conformity with Renault's whistleblowing
3
policy. But, Renault placed her on suspension and instituted disciplinary proceedings
against her in March 2019 and such acts constituted occupational detriments as
contemplated in the PDA in contravention of 3 of the PDA. It is averred that the
consequences thereof is that Ms Marais’ employment contract was unlawfully
terminated on 3 May 2019.
[5] The second claim is based on delict and seemingly specifically on the action
injuria. Ms Marais alleged that the derogatory and insulting utterances made by Mr
Cilliers on 18 September 2018 had the intention of demeaning her dignity, insulting
her, causing her damage and injuring her feelings. The utterances were that she as “a
coloured woman” had committed theft “like the previous employee Shoneeze van
Rooyen.” Mr Cilliers was acting in the course and scope of his employment with
Renault and therefore Renault is vicariously liable for the damage suffered by the
plaintiff. This utterance impaired her person and dignity as well as her loss of
occupational reputation, tarnished her record which has led to a loss of employment
opportunities.
[6] Ms Marais testified and had instructed her pro bona attorneys to proceed
without calling any witnesses. Renault closed its case without calling witnesses. The
merits and quantum were not separated in terms of the Uniform Rules of Court.
[7] Initially Ms Marais acted for herself that understandably led to the particulars
of claim undergoing several amendments in response to exceptions being noted by
Renault. However, before the trial commenced her attorneys were on record. The
judgment of Kuny J in the second exception proceeding expressed the current law,
clearly delineating the permissible scope of the first claim, i.e. the unlawful termination.
My Brother correctly found that:
“It emerged during the course of argument that the plaintiff had prosecuted a
claim based on her dismissal in the CCMA and subsequently before the Labour
Court. She was unsuccessful in this regard. In my view, she is attempting before
this court to revitalise an unsuccessful claim pursued under the Labour
Relations Act. However, on established principles, she is not permitted to do
so.”
The result was that this cause of action based was struck out.