Roscher v Industrial Development Corporation and Another (2012/ 22538) [2015] ZAGPJHC 18 (13 February 2015)

Roscher v Industrial Development Corporation and Another (2012/ 22538) [2015] ZAGPJHC 18 (13 February 2015)

The court held that prescription did not commence until 1 July 2009, the date stipulated for payment of the performance bonus under the employment agreement and scheme, as the debt only became due and enforceable then. The CCMA award did not determine the merits of the plaintiff's contractual entitlement to the bonus, but was limited to a jurisdictional finding that the dispute was not cognisable as an unfair labour practice under the LRA. Therefore, res judicata did not apply. The lis pendens plea was rendered moot by the plaintiff's withdrawal of the Labour Court review proceedings. The defendants were ordered to pay two thirds of the plaintiff's costs, including costs for two counsel...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 18
Parties
Plaintiff: Tracy Lucille Roscher; Defendant: Industrial Development Corporation; Defendant: FinDevCo (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 February 2015
Case Number
2012/ 22538
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Special Pleas Adjudication
Outcome
Special pleas of prescription and res judicata dismissed; lis pendens plea falls away; costs awarded to plaintiff.
Judges
Spilg
Legal Topics
Prescription Act Section 12, Res Judicata, Lis Pendens, Performance Bonus, Employment Contract
Labour Law Civil Procedure Prescription Act Section 12 Res Judicata Lis Pendens Performance Bonus Employment Contract

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tracy Lucille Roscher

Plaintiff

Industrial Development Corporation

Defendant

FinDevCo (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Special Pleas Adjudication

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim for a performance bonus is prescribed under section 12(1) of the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the doctrine of res judicata applies due to prior CCMA proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine of lis pendens applies due to pending Labour Court review proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that prescription did not commence until 1 July 2009, the date stipulated for payment of the performance bonus under the employment agreement and scheme, as the debt only became due and enforceable then. The CCMA award did not determine the merits of the plaintiff's contractual entitlement to the bonus, but was limited to a jurisdictional finding that the dispute was not cognisable as an unfair labour practice under the LRA. Therefore, res judicata did not apply. The lis pendens plea was rendered moot by the plaintiff's withdrawal of the Labour Court review proceedings. The defendants were ordered to pay two thirds of the plaintiff's costs, including costs for two counsel...

Court Disposition

Special pleas of prescription and res judicata dismissed; lis pendens plea falls away; costs awarded to plaintiff.

Orders

  • The first and second special pleas are dismissed.
  • The third special plea of lis pendens falls away.