Nkoane and Others v Food and Allied Workers Union (1378/2014) [2019] ZAGPJHC 265 (20 August 2019)

Nkoane and Others v Food and Allied Workers Union (1378/2014) [2019] ZAGPJHC 265 (20 August 2019)

The court held that the plaintiffs had a complete cause of action against the Union by 6 October 2004, when the Union failed to lodge the request for arbitration within the prescribed 90-day period. The subsequent condonation application and its dismissal did not affect the accrual of the plaintiffs' right to sue. The possibility of condonation in the future does not postpone the running of prescription. Therefore, the claim prescribed well before the summons was served in January 2014. The plea of prescription was upheld.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 265
Parties
Plaintiff: Nkhumise Gilbert Nkoane; Plaintiff: Machuene Lucas Seemela; Plaintiff: Ziambo Mabengu; Plaintiff: Lesiba Stephen Mathobela; Defendant: Food and Allied Workers Union
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 August 2019
Case Number
1378/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Plea of Prescription
Outcome
Plaintiffs' action dismissed with costs; plea of prescription upheld.
Judges
Wright
Legal Topics
Prescription, Negligent Breach of Mandate, Contractual Liability, Condonation Application
Civil Procedure Labour Law Prescription Negligent Breach of Mandate Contractual Liability Condonation Application

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nkhumise Gilbert Nkoane

Plaintiff

Machuene Lucas Seemela

Plaintiff

Ziambo Mabengu

Plaintiff

Lesiba Stephen Mathobela

Plaintiff

Food and Allied Workers Union

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Plea of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' claim against the Union for negligent breach of mandate has prescribed.
  2. 2 When did the debt or cause of action arise for purposes of prescription.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiffs had a complete cause of action against the Union by 6 October 2004, when the Union failed to lodge the request for arbitration within the prescribed 90-day period. The subsequent condonation application and its dismissal did not affect the accrual of the plaintiffs' right to sue. The possibility of condonation in the future does not postpone the running of prescription. Therefore, the claim prescribed well before the summons was served in January 2014. The plea of prescription was upheld.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' action dismissed with costs; plea of prescription upheld.

Orders

  • The plea of prescription is upheld with costs including those of senior counsel where so employed.
  • The plaintiffs' action is dismissed with costs.