Kubeka and Others v Ni-Da Transport (Pty) Ltd (D726-18;J5386-17) [2019] ZALCD 1; [2019] 5 BLLR 463 (LC); (2019) 40 ILJ 1312 (LC) (31 January 2019)

Kubeka and Others v Ni-Da Transport (Pty) Ltd (D726-18;J5386-17) [2019] ZALCD 1; [2019] 5 BLLR 463 (LC); (2019) 40 ILJ 1312 (LC) (31 January 2019)

The court held that the applicants were not entitled to arrear wages under a contractual claim because backpay only becomes due once the employment contract is fully restored, which requires both a tender of services and acceptance by the employer. The correct legal process for enforcing reinstatement and associated backpay is contempt proceedings, not a contractual claim under section 77(3) of the BCEA. The evidence established that a tender of services was made by a union official on behalf of the applicants, but the respondent refused reinstatement, choosing instead to pursue appeals. However, since the applicants did not pursue contempt proceedings to enforce reinstatement, their...

Citation
[2019] ZALCD 1
Parties
Applicant: Mhlupheki Willem Kubeka & Others; Respondent: Ni-Da Transport (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 January 2019
Case Number
D726-18;J5386-17
Procedural Posture
Contractual Claim / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Whitcher
Legal Topics
Arrear Wages, Reinstatement Order, Contempt of Court, Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Judgment Debt Vs Contract Debt
Labour Law Civil Procedure Arrear Wages Reinstatement Order Contempt of Court Basic Conditions of Employment Act Judgment Debt Vs Contract Debt

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mhlupheki Willem Kubeka & Others

Applicant

Ni-Da Transport (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contractual Claim / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the applicants entitled to arrear wages following an order of reinstatement after unfair dismissal?
  2. 2 Does a reinstatement order create a contractual obligation for backpay prior to actual reinstatement?
  3. 3 Was a valid tender of services made by the applicants after the reinstatement order?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants were not entitled to arrear wages under a contractual claim because backpay only becomes due once the employment contract is fully restored, which requires both a tender of services and acceptance by the employer. The correct legal process for enforcing reinstatement and associated backpay is contempt proceedings, not a contractual claim under section 77(3) of the BCEA. The evidence established that a tender of services was made by a union official on behalf of the applicants, but the respondent refused reinstatement, choosing instead to pursue appeals. However, since the applicants did not pursue contempt proceedings to enforce reinstatement, their...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

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