Mathekgana v Film and Publication Board (JA4/2014) [2015] ZALAC 42 (21 October 2015)

Mathekgana v Film and Publication Board (JA4/2014) [2015] ZALAC 42 (21 October 2015)

The Labour Appeal Court held that the appellant foresaw the existence of a factual dispute regarding payment of the 13th cheque but failed to request a referral to oral evidence. The respondent had alleged payment in its answering affidavit, and the dispute could not be resolved on the papers. The court a quo exercised its discretion not to mero motu refer the matter to oral evidence, and there was no basis for the appeal court to interfere with that discretion. The issue of prescription was not addressed, as the factual dispute was dispositive. The appeal was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made, given the reasonableness of the appellant's pursuit of the claim.

Citation
[2015] ZALAC 42
Parties
Appellant: Alpheus Makwena Mathekgana; Respondent: Film and Publication Board
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 October 2015
Case Number
JA4/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Urgent Application for Payment of 13th Cheque
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Tlaletsi, Sutherland, Mngqibisa-Thusi
Legal Topics
Basic Conditions of Employment Act, Motion Proceedings, Dispute of Facts, Prescription, Leave Pay, Payment of Benefits
Labour Law Civil Procedure Basic Conditions of Employment Act Motion Proceedings Dispute of Facts Prescription Leave Pay Payment of Benefits

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alpheus Makwena Mathekgana

Appellant

Film and Publication Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Urgent Application for Payment of 13th Cheque

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was entitled to payment of a 13th cheque upon resignation.
  2. 2 Whether the claim for the 13th cheque had prescribed.
  3. 3 Whether the dispute of fact regarding payment of the 13th cheque could be resolved on the papers.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court held that the appellant foresaw the existence of a factual dispute regarding payment of the 13th cheque but failed to request a referral to oral evidence. The respondent had alleged payment in its answering affidavit, and the dispute could not be resolved on the papers. The court a quo exercised its discretion not to mero motu refer the matter to oral evidence, and there was no basis for the appeal court to interfere with that discretion. The issue of prescription was not addressed, as the factual dispute was dispositive. The appeal was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made, given the reasonableness of the appellant's pursuit of the claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs is made.