Mathebe v Cullinan Diamond Mine (Pty) Ltd (JS382/2023) [2025] ZALCJHB 330 (1 August 2025)

Mathebe v Cullinan Diamond Mine (Pty) Ltd (JS382/2023) [2025] ZALCJHB 330 (1 August 2025)

The Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's claims for general damages and loss of earnings, as such relief is not contemplated by the Labour Relations Act or the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. The applicant failed to refer any unfair labour practice to the CCMA or a bargaining council, and did not plead any contractual breach or valid claim under the Mine Health and Safety Act. Furthermore, the applicant's claims have prescribed under the Prescription Act, as the cause of action arose no later than 28 February 2018 and the claim was only instituted in July 2023, well outside the three-year prescription period. The applicant cannot rely directly on...

Citation
[2025] ZALCJHB 330
Parties
Applicant: Abram Makanyane Mathebe; Respondent: Cullinan Diamond Mine (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Chief Inspector of Mines
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 August 2025
Case Number
JS382/2023
Procedural Posture
Special Plea / Hearing and Judgment on Special Plea to Jurisdiction
Outcome
The respondent's special plea is upheld and the applicant's claim is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Judges
Anestidis
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Prescription Act, Unfair Labour Practice, Mine Health and Safety Act, Contract of Employment, General Damages
Civil Procedure Labour Law Jurisdiction of Labour Court Prescription Act Unfair Labour Practice Mine Health and Safety Act Contract of Employment General Damages

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abram Makanyane Mathebe

Applicant

Cullinan Diamond Mine (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Chief Inspector of Mines

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Plea / Hearing and Judgment on Special Plea to Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Labour Court have jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's claims for general damages and loss of earnings arising from an alleged occupational disease?
  2. 2 Has the applicant's claim prescribed under the Prescription Act?
  3. 3 Can the applicant rely on constitutional rights or the Mine Health and Safety Act for the relief sought in this forum?

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the applicant's claims for general damages and loss of earnings, as such relief is not contemplated by the Labour Relations Act or the Basic Conditions of Employment Act. The applicant failed to refer any unfair labour practice to the CCMA or a bargaining council, and did not plead any contractual breach or valid claim under the Mine Health and Safety Act. Furthermore, the applicant's claims have prescribed under the Prescription Act, as the cause of action arose no later than 28 February 2018 and the claim was only instituted in July 2023, well outside the three-year prescription period. The applicant cannot rely directly on...

Court Disposition

The respondent's special plea is upheld and the applicant's claim is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • The respondent's special plea is upheld, and the applicant's claim is entirely dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
  • There is no order as to costs.