Ithala SOC Ltd v Ntombela and Others (DA 1/2024) [2024] ZALAC 71; [2025] 4 BLLR 425 (LAC) (24 December 2024)

Ithala SOC Ltd v Ntombela and Others (DA 1/2024) [2024] ZALAC 71; [2025] 4 BLLR 425 (LAC) (24 December 2024)

The Labour Appeal Court found that the appellant had reinstated the employees before initiating the appeal process, which constituted acquiescence in the Labour Court's judgment. The appellant's argument that reinstatement was merely a strategy to limit backpay liability was rejected as contrary to legal principle and public policy. The Court held that such conduct amounts to peremption, as it is an unequivocal act inconsistent with an intention to contest the judgment. Consequently, the appellant's right to appeal was extinguished, and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2024] ZALAC 71
Parties
Appellant: Ithala SOC Ltd; Respondent: Faith Noziziwe Ntombela; Respondent: Kholisile Dlamini; Respondent: Jabulani Ngwane N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 December 2024
Case Number
DA 1/2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment Dismissing Review Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed on grounds of peremption.
Judges
Molahlehi, Nkutha-Nkontwana, Mooki
Legal Topics
Peremption of Appeal, Reinstatement, Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Peremption of Appeal Reinstatement Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ithala SOC Ltd

Appellant

Faith Noziziwe Ntombela

Respondent

Kholisile Dlamini

Respondent

Jabulani Ngwane N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment Dismissing Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant perempted its right to appeal by reinstating the employees before launching the appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the reinstatement constituted acquiescence to the Labour Court's judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the appeal should be dismissed on grounds of peremption.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court found that the appellant had reinstated the employees before initiating the appeal process, which constituted acquiescence in the Labour Court's judgment. The appellant's argument that reinstatement was merely a strategy to limit backpay liability was rejected as contrary to legal principle and public policy. The Court held that such conduct amounts to peremption, as it is an unequivocal act inconsistent with an intention to contest the judgment. Consequently, the appellant's right to appeal was extinguished, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed on grounds of peremption.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.