South African Tourism v Monare (JA76/2019) [2020] ZALAC 47; (2021) 42 ILJ 125 (LAC) ; [2021] 4 BLLR 386 (LAC) (27 August 2020)

South African Tourism v Monare (JA76/2019) [2020] ZALAC 47; (2021) 42 ILJ 125 (LAC) ; [2021] 4 BLLR 386 (LAC) (27 August 2020)

The Labour Appeal Court held that the respondent's claim for arrear salaries had not prescribed because the debt only became due and payable after the Labour Appeal Court's judgment on 11 November 2015, which revived the arbitration award. The respondent did not accept the repudiation and cancel the contract at the time of dismissal but instead sought reinstatement. Prescription could not run while the review proceedings were pending, as the respondent was not in a position to enforce his claim. The Labour Court's order was amended to provide for payment of damages in pounds sterling at the exchange rate applicable at the date of payment, with interest calculated from the date each salary...

Citation
[2020] ZALAC 47
Parties
Appellant: South African Tourism; Respondent: Tebogo Brian Monare
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 August 2020
Case Number
JA76/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Labour Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal upheld; Labour Court order amended to reflect correct exchange rate date, interest calculation, and costs.
Judges
Coppin, Kathree-Setiloane, Murphy
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Unlawful Dismissal, Contractual Damages, Interest on Arrears, Costs Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Prescription Act Unlawful Dismissal Contractual Damages Interest on Arrears Costs 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Tourism

Appellant

Tebogo Brian Monare

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Labour Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's claim for arrear salaries had prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Labour Court was correct in granting the order for payment of arrear salaries and interest.
  3. 3 Whether the correct exchange rate date was applied for conversion of damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court held that the respondent's claim for arrear salaries had not prescribed because the debt only became due and payable after the Labour Appeal Court's judgment on 11 November 2015, which revived the arbitration award. The respondent did not accept the repudiation and cancel the contract at the time of dismissal but instead sought reinstatement. Prescription could not run while the review proceedings were pending, as the respondent was not in a position to enforce his claim. The Labour Court's order was amended to provide for payment of damages in pounds sterling at the exchange rate applicable at the date of payment, with interest calculated from the date each salary...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal upheld; Labour Court order amended to reflect correct exchange rate date, interest calculation, and costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The cross-appeal is upheld.