Du Preez v Durban Institute of Technology (13452/2007) [2008] ZAKZHC 102; 2010 (1) SA 372 (N) (19 August 2008)

Du Preez v Durban Institute of Technology (13452/2007) [2008] ZAKZHC 102; 2010 (1) SA 372 (N) (19 August 2008)

The court found that the applicant's claim concerns post-employment enforcement of a contractual condition of service, namely the PRMA subsidy, and is not reserved for exclusive determination by the Labour Court under the Labour Relations Act. The respondent's reliance on Chirwa v Transnet was misplaced, as the present dispute does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court. On the merits, the evidence established that the applicant took early retirement at age 60 in terms of his conditions of service and became entitled to the PRMA subsidy. The respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving that the applicant waived his right to the subsidy by accepting the...

Citation
[2008] ZAKZHC 102
Parties
Applicant: Albert Louis Du Preez; Respondent: Durban University of Technology
Court
High Courts - Kwazulu Natal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 August 2008
Case Number
13452/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment After Opposed Application
Outcome
Application granted. The respondent is ordered to reinstate the applicant's post-retirement medical aid subsidy and pay arrears with interest and costs.
Judges
Msimang
Legal Topics
Post Retirement Medical Aid Subsidy, Waiver of Rights, Jurisdiction of High Court, Voluntary Exit Package
Labour Law Civil Procedure Post Retirement Medical Aid Subsidy Waiver of Rights Jurisdiction of High Court Voluntary Exit Package

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Albert Louis Du Preez

Applicant

Durban University of Technology

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment After Opposed Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's claim for post-retirement medical aid subsidy.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to reinstatement of the post-retirement medical aid subsidy under his conditions of service.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant waived his right to the PRMA subsidy by accepting the Voluntary Exit Package.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's claim concerns post-employment enforcement of a contractual condition of service, namely the PRMA subsidy, and is not reserved for exclusive determination by the Labour Court under the Labour Relations Act. The respondent's reliance on Chirwa v Transnet was misplaced, as the present dispute does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court. On the merits, the evidence established that the applicant took early retirement at age 60 in terms of his conditions of service and became entitled to the PRMA subsidy. The respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving that the applicant waived his right to the subsidy by accepting the...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The respondent is ordered to reinstate the applicant's post-retirement medical aid subsidy and pay arrears with interest and costs.

Orders

  • The respondent is directed to reinstate the applicant's post-retirement medical aid subsidy equivalent to 60% of the applicant's monthly medical aid subscription to Discovery Health with effect from 1 September 2008.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the PRMA subsidy which would have been paid to the applicant from September 2006 up to the month of reinstatement.