The facts of the case as well as the
applicable legal principles have been set out in the judgments of my
Brothers and it would be futile to recount them here. Suffice it to
say that on the crucial question that had ignited debate resulting
in divergence of opinion, whilst Chomba, AJA has concluded that the
contents of the documents that had passed between the appellant and
the first respondent did not constitute an offer and acceptance and
therefore did not result in the conclusion of a valid contract
between the parties as well as the further finding by him that the
termination by the appellant of the employment contract between it
and the first respondent was not consensual but a unilateral act on
the part of the appellant, Maritz, JA on the other hand, has come to
a contrary conclusion on the point. He has found, inter
alia, that the invitation
that had been extended to the first respondent to participate, if so
minded, in the voluntary retrenchment scheme, was premised on the
clear understanding that should he elect to participate, he might be
required to sign a deed of final settlement; that by informing the
appellant that he had opted for the voluntary severance package
“available”, such package is the one conditional upon his
signing the deed of final settlement if called upon to do so. It
followed then, so Maritz, JA reasoned, that although his application
was not expressly referred to as an “offer”, it was in substance
an offer subject to the requirement to sign a deed of final
settlement if called upon to do so. The appellant had accepted the
respondent’s offer to be retrenched and by the same token had
elected to accept the first respondent’s offer to sign a deed of
settlement “as contemplated in the guidelines”. It followed, so
Maritz, JA concluded, that the written exchanges between the parties
constituted a contract by offer and acceptance subject to the
appellant’s voluntary retrenchment policy guidelines. It followed
furthermore that the first respondent was retrenched in terms of the
agreement that was concluded when the appellant had accepted the
first respondent’s application for voluntary retrenchment under
the scheme.