But it is more likely that you negotiated a detailed comparative agreement to eliminate the debt. For more information on the various forms of documentation of a settlement, see the practical note: dispute resolution – documenting a settlement. In view of the content of the agreement and the circumstances in which it was rendered, the Court refused to sanction the withdrawal appeal and, in particular, to sanction the terms of the transaction contract by the same court decision. The Tribunal found that the tradition of decision-making in court decisions was strong in our legal system, but that a court should not act mechanically to make a settlement agreement a court order. A court can only make a decision that is „competent and fair“ and complies with the Constitution and the law and which, as such, must first and foremost relate directly or indirectly to the issues between the parties and which, moreover, cannot be challenged, both from a legal and a practical point of view, that its conditions must be in accordance with the Constitution and the law. South African courts have largely accepted that once a mutually agreed transaction agreement is reached, it can be done by mutual agreement, which would lead to a decision on an issue. The comparison itself can only take the form of an approval decision if the claim is very straight and non-confidential, if the transaction deals only with a case management issue within the proceedings. Under the Federal Rule of Evidence 408, transaction negotiations generally cannot be considered evidence in court and many state rules of evidence have similar rules on the model.  In order to circumvent the issue of confidentiality mentioned above, a standard consent order, called „Tomlin-Order,“ is issued. The decision itself provides that the claim is suspended and that no further action can be taken in court (except for the referral of a dispute in the execution of the decision to the Tribunal, which is admissible).
The order also deals with the payment of fees and payments of money outside when the money is held by the court (since these will be matters that must be dealt with by court decision). However, the actual terms of the transaction are dealt with in a „schedule“ of the order, which may remain confidential. Violations of the calendar may be considered a breach of contract or a violation of the consent order. The settlement of the action defines the legal requirements of the parties and is often enforced by a court order according to a common provision by the parties. In other cases (such as where the fees have been met by the payment of a certain amount of money), the plaintiff and the defendant can only file the rejection of the proceedings.  As noted above, the Avnet Tribunal refused to enter into the transaction agreement with a court order, as no disputes have been initiated between the parties and therefore are not competent. The Tribunal invoked a diktat in Eke/Parsons 2016 (3) SA 37 (CC), which stated that „parties who have left outside the litigation framework cannot go to a court and request that their consent be given to a court decision.“ First, it was found that the primary function of the courts was to resolve disputes between parties. The Tribunal was not in a position to rule or make a decision if a dispute was not before it. On the basis of PL v YL 2013 (6) SA 28 (ECG), the Tribunal found that it could issue only „competent and appropriate“ orders, with the antithesis that a court cannot be mechanical in issuing orders.