Mpato v Cross Border Road Transport Agency (29767/2004) [2010] ZAGPPHC 635 (8 June 2010)

Mpato v Cross Border Road Transport Agency (29767/2004) [2010] ZAGPPHC 635 (8 June 2010)

The court held that the plaintiff's claim for damages was prescribed, as the applicable period of prescription is three years and the action was instituted after the expiry of three years from the date of dismissal. The plaintiff's argument that prescription only commenced upon the CCMA award was rejected; prescription runs from the date the cause of action arises, which was the date of dismissal. The court further found that the employment contract did not comply with section 36(5) of the PFMA, as the only written record was an appointment letter and not a signed contract setting out terms and conditions. The PFMA applies to the defendant, which is expressly listed as a public entity in...

Citation
[2010] ZAGPPHC 635
Parties
Plaintiff: Gabriel Mpato; Defendant: Cross Border Road Transport Agency
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 June 2010
Case Number
29767/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Pleas Determined Separately Under Rule 33(4) (6); Main Action Postponed Sine Die
Outcome
Plaintiff's action dismissed with costs; both special pleas upheld.
Judges
Webster
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Unfair Dismissal, Public Finance Management Act, Employment Contract Formality
Labour Law Civil Procedure Prescription Act Unfair Dismissal Public Finance Management Act Employment Contract Formality

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

Parties

Gabriel Mpato

Plaintiff

Cross Border Road Transport Agency

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Pleas Determined Separately Under Rule 33(4) (6); Main Action Postponed Sine Die

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from alleged unlawful termination of employment is prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the employment contract complied with section 36(5) of the Public Finance Management Act, requiring a written contract for accounting officers.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff could delay prescription by contesting dismissal at the CCMA before instituting damages action.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff's claim for damages was prescribed, as the applicable period of prescription is three years and the action was instituted after the expiry of three years from the date of dismissal. The plaintiff's argument that prescription only commenced upon the CCMA award was rejected; prescription runs from the date the cause of action arises, which was the date of dismissal. The court further found that the employment contract did not comply with section 36(5) of the PFMA, as the only written record was an appointment letter and not a signed contract setting out terms and conditions. The PFMA applies to the defendant, which is expressly listed as a public entity in...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's action dismissed with costs; both special pleas upheld.

Orders

  • The special pleas raised by the defendant are upheld.
  • The plaintiff's action is dismissed with costs.