High Court rejects former Allan Gray employee’s R500,000 ‘gratitude gift’ claim

A former Allan Gray employee has lost a bid to claim a R500,000 payment after the Western Cape High Court found the investment company was not legally responsible for the promised “gratitude gift,” according to IOL.

Judgment rejects claim against company

According to IOL, Acting Judge M.F. Adams upheld an exception brought by Allan Gray (Pty) Ltd and dismissed the claim instituted by former employee Asavela Nkamisa. The court also ordered Nkamisa to pay the company’s legal costs.

Dispute over a “gratitude gift” promised by Gill Gray

IOL reports that the dispute centred on a R500,000 payment described in court papers as a “gratitude gift” that Nkamisa said she became entitled to after her fixed-term employment contract expired on 31 January 2025. Nkamisa relied on a document in the pleadings called “POC2,” a communication from the late Gill Gray in which Gray expressed gratitude to certain employees and outlined the proposed gift.

According to IOL, the court noted that Gill Gray’s communication repeatedly used personal language such as “my journey”, “my deep appreciation”, “I have arranged a gift” and “from me to each of you”, which the judge found reflected a personal gesture rather than a corporate undertaking.

“The pleaded case therefore discloses a fundamental disconnect between the alleged promisor and the cited defendant,” the judgment said, according to IOL.

Why the court found Allan Gray not liable

IOL states Allan Gray argued it had been wrongly sued because the promise originated from Gill Gray personally and the document relied on by Nkamisa did not legally bind the company. The company also said Nkamisa’s particulars of claim failed to establish a valid contractual basis for payment.

The court found there were no pleaded allegations of agency, assumption of debt, ratification, or any other recognised legal mechanism that would transfer liability from Gill Gray to Allan Gray. The judge held that the company’s involvement in communicating or administering eligibility criteria did not automatically make it legally responsible for the payment.

Contract and labour-law arguments dismissed

IOL reports that Nkamisa had attempted to rely on express and implied contractual terms and on labour legislation such as the Labour Relations Act and the Employment Equity Act. The court found neither the employment contract nor Gill Gray’s communication created an enforceable contractual right to the R500,000 payment.

The judgment also addressed jurisdictional issues, noting that, when properly characterised, the dispute related to an alleged workplace benefit and fell within the framework of the Labour Relations Act. The court emphasised that parties cannot avoid specialised labour dispute-resolution mechanisms by relabelling labour disputes as contractual or constitutional claims, citing established authorities.

Final order

According to IOL, the court upheld all three grounds of exception raised by Allan Gray, struck out Nkamisa’s claim and directed her to pay the legal costs.

Image: AI-Generated, according to IOL.

According to IOL, the news outlet that reported the case.