Naidoo v Nsibanyoni NO and Others (JR54/18) [2020] ZALCJHB 263 (29 June 2020)

Naidoo v Nsibanyoni NO and Others (JR54/18) [2020] ZALCJHB 263 (29 June 2020)

The court held that the applicant's expectation of renewal was based on representations that were not competent or lawful for the decision-makers to make. As a matter of law, reliance on such representations cannot give rise to a reasonable or legitimate expectation. The Commissioner did not misconstrue the nature of the enquiry and correctly concluded that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving a reasonable expectation of renewal. Consequently, the failure to renew the fixed term contract did not constitute a dismissal under section 186(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, and the review application was dismissed.

Citation
[2020] ZALCJHB 263
Parties
Applicant: Thru Naidoo; Respondent: T Nsibanyoni N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: National Home Builders Registration Council
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 June 2020
Case Number
JR54/18
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Opposed Review and Condonation Application
Outcome
Review application dismissed; condonation granted with costs to third respondent; no order as to costs on the main application.
Judges
Rabkin-Naicker
Legal Topics
Reasonable Expectation of Renewal, Fixed Term Contracts, Unfair Dismissal, Condonation, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Reasonable Expectation of Renewal Fixed Term Contracts Unfair Dismissal Condonation Review of Arbitration Award

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thru Naidoo

Applicant

T Nsibanyoni N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

National Home Builders Registration Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Opposed Review and Condonation Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant had a reasonable expectation of renewal of her fixed term contract of employment.
  2. 2 Whether the representations made to the applicant were competent and lawful to induce reliance.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award was reviewable due to alleged failure to consider material evidence and apprehension of bias.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant's expectation of renewal was based on representations that were not competent or lawful for the decision-makers to make. As a matter of law, reliance on such representations cannot give rise to a reasonable or legitimate expectation. The Commissioner did not misconstrue the nature of the enquiry and correctly concluded that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving a reasonable expectation of renewal. Consequently, the failure to renew the fixed term contract did not constitute a dismissal under section 186(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, and the review application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed; condonation granted with costs to third respondent; no order as to costs on the main application.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is granted with costs to be paid by the third respondent.
  • The review application is dismissed with no order as to costs.