Fidelity Fund Security Services v Ngqola (JA 61/21) [2022] ZALAC 87; (2022) 43 ILJ 1611 (LAC); [2022] 8 BLLR 705 (LAC) (7 April 2022)

Fidelity Fund Security Services v Ngqola (JA 61/21) [2022] ZALAC 87; (2022) 43 ILJ 1611 (LAC); [2022] 8 BLLR 705 (LAC) (7 April 2022)

The Labour Appeal Court found that the respondent was indeed reinstated as ordered by the arbitrator and Labour Court. The respondent reported for duty and tendered her services, but the appellant refused to allow her to resume work, instead offering a settlement and later requiring her to sign a new contract with less favourable terms. The court held that the arbitration award and subsequent court order were binding and not suspended by the appellant's review application, as no security was furnished nor suspension ordered. The respondent was entitled to arrear salary from the date of dismissal to the date of her resignation, as calculated by the Labour Court. The appellant's conduct in...

Citation
[2022] ZALAC 87
Parties
Appellant: Fidelity Fund Security Services; Respondent: Patience Siziwe Ngqola
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 April 2022
Case Number
JA 61/21
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment and Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Coppin, Savage, Tokota
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Reinstatement, Arrear Salary, Costs Award, Review Application
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Reinstatement Arrear Salary Costs Award Review Application

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

Fidelity Fund Security Services

Appellant

Patience Siziwe Ngqola

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was entitled to arrear salary from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was properly reinstated as ordered by the arbitrator and Labour Court.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's conduct justified a costs order against it.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court found that the respondent was indeed reinstated as ordered by the arbitrator and Labour Court. The respondent reported for duty and tendered her services, but the appellant refused to allow her to resume work, instead offering a settlement and later requiring her to sign a new contract with less favourable terms. The court held that the arbitration award and subsequent court order were binding and not suspended by the appellant's review application, as no security was furnished nor suspension ordered. The respondent was entitled to arrear salary from the date of dismissal to the date of her resignation, as calculated by the Labour Court. The appellant's conduct in...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.