A former Allan Gray employee has lost her bid to claim a R500,000 gratitude gift allegedly promised to qualifying staff by the late Gill Gray.

The Western Cape High Court in Cape Town found that Allan Gray (Pty) Ltd was not legally responsible for the payment. The court also held that the claim did not show a valid contractual basis against the company.

Court finds Allan Gray was not the promisor

Acting Judge M.F. Adams upheld an exception brought by Allan Gray against the claim filed by former employee Asavela Nkamisa. The court dismissed her claim and ordered her to pay the company’s legal costs.

According to the judgment, Nkamisa’s fixed-term employment contract ended on 31 January 2025. She argued that she became entitled to the R500,000 gratitude gift after her contract ended.

The Allan Gray R500,000 gift claim centred on a document referred to in court papers as “POC2”. The document recorded a communication from Gill Gray, a founding member of Allan Gray, about a proposed gift to certain employees.

However, the court found that the wording pointed to a personal gesture by Gill Gray, not a corporate promise by Allan Gray. The judgment noted phrases such as “my journey”, “my deep appreciation”, “I have arranged a gift”, and “from me to each of you”.

Claim lacked a contractual basis, court says

Nkamisa argued that Allan Gray had communicated eligibility criteria and discussed the administration of the gift. She also said she met the requirements but was unfairly excluded.

Allan Gray opposed the claim on three main grounds. It argued that it had been wrongly sued, that the communication did not bind the company, and that Nkamisa’s particulars of claim did not disclose a contractual cause of action.

Judge Adams agreed. The court found that Allan Gray’s role in communicating or administering criteria did not, on its own, make the company liable for payment.

The judgment stated that Nkamisa had not pleaded any recognised legal mechanism that could bind Allan Gray to Gill Gray’s alleged personal undertaking. These could have included agency, assumption of debt, ratification, or another legal basis.

Labour dispute framework also relevant

The court also found that the dispute, properly viewed, related to an alleged workplace benefit. It said such disputes fall within the labour dispute-resolution framework under the Labour Relations Act.

According to the judgment, a statutory labour dispute cannot be turned into a contractual claim simply by relabelling it. The court relied on established labour-law principles that require courts to look at the substance of a dispute, not only how it is framed in pleadings.

In its conclusion, the court found that Nkamisa’s particulars of claim did not disclose a sustainable cause of action against Allan Gray. It upheld all three grounds of exception and struck out the claim.

The Allan Gray R500,000 gift claim therefore ended with a costs order against Nkamisa. The order included the costs of counsel on Scale C.