SACCAWU obo Makhubela v Development Bank of South Africa; Radebe v Development Bank of South Africa (JS443/12; JS437/12) [2013] ZALCJHB 193; (2014) 35 ILJ 778 (LC) (15 August 2013)

SACCAWU obo Makhubela v Development Bank of South Africa; Radebe v Development Bank of South Africa (JS443/12; JS437/12) [2013] ZALCJHB 193; (2014) 35 ILJ 778 (LC) (15 August 2013)

The Labour Court held that it is not bound by the CCMA's ruling on time periods for instituting contractual claims. The CCMA's jurisdictional rulings are for convenience and do not truncate statutory or common law timeframes. The Prescription Act applies to contractual claims under section 77(3) of the BCEA, and the term 'debt' is interpreted broadly to include claims for specific performance and accrued remuneration. Neither the LRA nor the BCEA prescribes a time period inconsistent with the Prescription Act, so the three-year prescription period governs these claims. The applicants instituted their claims within this period, and the points in limine raised by the respondent are dismissed.

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 193
Parties
Applicant: SACCAWU obo Makhubela; Applicant: SACCAWU obo Radebe; Respondent: Development Bank of South Africa
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 August 2013
Case Number
JS443/12; JS437/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Preliminary Points in Limine Regarding Time Periods for Contractual Claims Under Section 77(3) and (4) of the BCEA
Outcome
The points in limine raised by the respondent are dismissed with costs.
Judges
Gaibie
Legal Topics
Contractual Claims Under Bcea, Prescription Act Application, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Points in Limine, Specific Performance, Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Civil Procedure Contractual Claims Under Bcea Prescription Act Application Jurisdiction of Labour Court Points in Limine Specific Performance Unfair Dismissal

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SACCAWU obo Makhubela

Applicant

SACCAWU obo Radebe

Applicant

Development Bank of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Preliminary Points in Limine Regarding Time Periods for Contractual Claims Under Section 77(3) and (4) of the BCEA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' contractual claims were instituted within the applicable time periods.
  2. 2 Whether the CCMA's ruling on time periods binds the Labour Court.
  3. 3 Whether the Prescription Act applies to contractual claims under section 77(3) of the BCEA.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Court held that it is not bound by the CCMA's ruling on time periods for instituting contractual claims. The CCMA's jurisdictional rulings are for convenience and do not truncate statutory or common law timeframes. The Prescription Act applies to contractual claims under section 77(3) of the BCEA, and the term 'debt' is interpreted broadly to include claims for specific performance and accrued remuneration. Neither the LRA nor the BCEA prescribes a time period inconsistent with the Prescription Act, so the three-year prescription period governs these claims. The applicants instituted their claims within this period, and the points in limine raised by the respondent are dismissed.

Court Disposition

The points in limine raised by the respondent are dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The points in limine raised by the Development Bank of South Africa in both matters (JS443/12 and JS437/12) are dismissed with costs.