Mogaila v Coca Cola Fortune (Pty) Limited (CCT76/16) [2017] ZACC 6; [2017] 5 BLLR 439 (CC); (2017) 38 ILJ 1273 (CC); 2017 (7) BCLR 839 (CC); 2018 (1) SA 82 (CC) (2 March 2017)

Mogaila v Coca Cola Fortune (Pty) Limited (CCT76/16) [2017] ZACC 6; [2017] 5 BLLR 439 (CC); (2017) 38 ILJ 1273 (CC); 2017 (7) BCLR 839 (CC); 2018 (1) SA 82 (CC) (2 March 2017)

The Constitutional Court held that, regardless of which approach in Myathaza is followed, Ms Mogaila is entitled to an order declaring that the arbitration award ordering her reinstatement has not prescribed. The Court found that either the Prescription Act does not apply to LRA arbitration awards, or, if it does, the reinstatement order is not a 'debt' for prescription purposes. Alternatively, even if the Prescription Act applies, the referral to the CCMA interrupted prescription until the review proceedings were finalised, and Ms Mogaila's application was timeous. Direct access was warranted due to the overlap with Myathaza and the interests of justice. Ms Mogaila is entitled to proceed...

Citation
[2017] ZACC 6
Parties
Applicant: Maria Jane Mogaila; Respondent: Coca Cola Fortune (Pty) Limited
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 March 2017
Case Number
CCT76/16
Procedural Posture
Direct Access Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for direct access granted. Declaration that the order of reinstatement in favour of Ms Mogaila under arbitration award LP7202-07 has not prescribed. Costs awarded against the respondent.
Judges
Mogoeng, Nkabinde, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Mojapelo, Pretorius, Zondo
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Arbitration Award Enforcement, Direct Access, Reinstatement, Unfair Dismissal, Constitutional Consistency
Labour Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Prescription Act Arbitration Award Enforcement Direct Access Reinstatement Unfair Dismissal +1 more

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maria Jane Mogaila

Applicant

Coca Cola Fortune (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Direct Access Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Prescription Act apply to arbitration awards issued under the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Is an order of reinstatement under an arbitration award a 'debt' for purposes of the Prescription Act.
  3. 3 Has the arbitration award in favour of Ms Mogaila prescribed.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that, regardless of which approach in Myathaza is followed, Ms Mogaila is entitled to an order declaring that the arbitration award ordering her reinstatement has not prescribed. The Court found that either the Prescription Act does not apply to LRA arbitration awards, or, if it does, the reinstatement order is not a 'debt' for prescription purposes. Alternatively, even if the Prescription Act applies, the referral to the CCMA interrupted prescription until the review proceedings were finalised, and Ms Mogaila's application was timeous. Direct access was warranted due to the overlap with Myathaza and the interests of justice. Ms Mogaila is entitled to proceed...

Court Disposition

Application for direct access granted. Declaration that the order of reinstatement in favour of Ms Mogaila under arbitration award LP7202-07 has not prescribed. Costs awarded against the respondent.

Orders

  • The application for direct access is granted.
  • It is declared that the order of reinstatement in favour of Ms Maria Jane Mogaila under arbitration award LP7202-07 has not prescribed in terms of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.