Makgoka v Silverstar Casino (J310/21) [2023] ZALCJHB 135 (21 April 2023)

Makgoka v Silverstar Casino (J310/21) [2023] ZALCJHB 135 (21 April 2023)

The Labour Court found that the applicant's claim was based on an alleged unilateral change to his contract of employment and a breach thereof, seeking restoration of the status quo and specific performance. The absence of explicit reference to section 77 of the BCEA in the pleadings does not deprive the Labour Court of jurisdiction, as the substance of the claim is contractual and falls within the Court's powers under section 77(3) of the BCEA. The respondent's argument regarding prematurity and jurisdiction was rejected, as the referral to the CCMA and its withdrawal were irrelevant to the contractual claim before the Labour Court. The point in limine was dismissed, and the matter was...

Citation
[2023] ZALCJHB 135
Parties
Applicant: Koena Joseph Makgoka; Respondent: Silverstar Casino
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 April 2023
Case Number
J310/21
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Point in Limine and Jurisdictional Challenge Before Trial
Outcome
The respondent's point in limine is dismissed. The matter is to be enrolled for trial. No order as to costs.
Judges
M Makhura
Legal Topics
Unilateral Change to Terms, Specific Performance, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Breach of Contract
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unilateral Change to Terms Specific Performance Jurisdiction of Labour Court Breach of Contract

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Koena Joseph Makgoka

Applicant

Silverstar Casino

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Point in Limine and Jurisdictional Challenge Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim for unilateral change to terms and conditions of employment under section 77 of the BCEA.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of explicit reference to section 77 of the BCEA in the applicant's pleadings deprives the Labour Court of jurisdiction.
  3. 3 Whether the referral to the CCMA and its subsequent withdrawal affects the applicant's claim before the Labour Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court found that the applicant's claim was based on an alleged unilateral change to his contract of employment and a breach thereof, seeking restoration of the status quo and specific performance. The absence of explicit reference to section 77 of the BCEA in the pleadings does not deprive the Labour Court of jurisdiction, as the substance of the claim is contractual and falls within the Court's powers under section 77(3) of the BCEA. The respondent's argument regarding prematurity and jurisdiction was rejected, as the referral to the CCMA and its withdrawal were irrelevant to the contractual claim before the Labour Court. The point in limine was dismissed, and the matter was...

Court Disposition

The respondent's point in limine is dismissed. The matter is to be enrolled for trial. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The respondent’s point in limine is dismissed.
  • The Registrar is directed to enrol the matter for trial.