JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)

In the matter between:

And

JUDGMENT

[2] The magistrate's reasons were given on 2 March 2007. Appellant filed her notice of appeal on 4 September 2007, substantially outside the time period referred to in Rule 51(3) of the Magistrates' Court Rules requiring such notice of appeal to be filed within 20 days of the court's reasons.  There is no application for condonation for the late fifing of the notice of appeal and, in addition, no heads of argument were filed on behalf of the appellant.

[4] In regard to the merits, the appellant was employed by the respondent as a sales representative until her resignation on 8 April 2004. Prior to her resignation, on 22 April 2002, the parties entered into a written contract pursuant to which the appellant undertook to repay the sum of R80 000 to the respondent in the event of her resignation within two years of certain specialised training being provided to her. In terms of this contract the sum repayable reduced on a sliding scale extending over the two year period ensuing after the provision of the training.

[5] Appellant completed her training on 25 February 2004 and she resigned on 8 April 2004, As a result of her resignation and pursuant to the formula contained in the contract, appellant was obliged to repay to respondent the sum of R76 666.66.

[6] In her notice of appeal, the appellant raises only two grounds. Firstly, that the magistrate erred in not finding that the sum claimed was a penalty in terms of the Convention Penalties Act and secondly, that the magistrate erred in not reducing the penalty. It was common cause during the trial that the sum claimed by the respondent is a penalty and it is apparent from the magistrate's reasons that she considered it as such.

[7] The respondent presented the evidence of Ms C Myroff who testified regarding the costs to the respondent of the training provided to the appellant. She prepared a schedule (Exhibit R) in which she calculated the cost of the training program to be R73 193.85. Her evidence in this regard was not challenged.

[8]    In the result I would dismiss the appeal, with costs. 

WAGLAY, J