Supply Termination Officers (STOs) and Others v City of Johannesburg Revenue, Finance And Economic Development and Another (J1858/12) [2014] ZALCJHB 388 (14 October 2014)

Supply Termination Officers (STOs) and Others v City of Johannesburg Revenue, Finance And Economic Development and Another (J1858/12) [2014] ZALCJHB 388 (14 October 2014)

The court found that the applicants' claim under the Memorandum had prescribed, as more than three years had elapsed since the agreement was concluded and no valid interruption of prescription occurred. The court held that partial payments made by the respondents did not constitute compliance with the Memorandum, as...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 388
Parties
Applicant: Supply Termination Officers (STOs) [Sibusiso Mhlongo and 12 Others]; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Revenue, Finance And Economic Development; Respondent: City Power (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 October 2014
Case Number
J1858/12
Procedural Posture
Application / Judgment on Application to Make Settlement Agreement an Order of Court
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Leppan
Legal Topics
Settlement Agreement Enforcement, Prescription Act, Jurisdiction of Labour Court, Section 158 Lra, Quantification of Claim
Labour Law Civil Procedure Settlement Agreement Enforcement Prescription Act Jurisdiction of Labour Court Section 158 Lra Quantification of Claim

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Supply Termination Officers (STOs) [Sibusiso Mhlongo and 12 Others]

Applicant

City of Johannesburg Revenue, Finance And Economic Development

Respondent

City Power (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application / Judgment on Application to Make Settlement Agreement an Order of Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Memorandum of Understanding (settlement agreement) can be made an order of court under section 158(1)(c) of the LRA.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' claim in terms of the Memorandum has prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' claim under the Memorandum had prescribed, as more than three years had elapsed since the agreement was concluded and no valid interruption of prescription occurred. The court held that partial payments made by the respondents did not constitute compliance with the Memorandum, as they did not relate to back pay accrued at the date of transfer. Referral to conciliation did not interrupt prescription, as only arbitration or litigation can do so under the Prescription Act. Furthermore, the Memorandum was found to be unenforceable due to its lack of quantified sums and reliance on future agreement between the parties, amounting to an agreement to agree....

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.