Uitenhage Municipality v Molloy (332/96) [1997] ZASCA 112; 1998 (2) SA 735 (SCA); [1998] 1 All SA 140 (A); (1998) 19 ILJ 757 (SCA) (27 November 1997)

Uitenhage Municipality v Molloy (332/96) [1997] ZASCA 112; 1998 (2) SA 735 (SCA); [1998] 1 All SA 140 (A); (1998) 19 ILJ 757 (SCA) (27 November 1997)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's claims for overtime and Sunday work remuneration became due at the end of each month in which the work was performed, in terms of the Employment Act. Prescription commenced to run from that date, and the procedural requirements of section 30(3) of the Employment Act did not postpone the running of prescription. The court distinguished between when a debt is 'due' and when it is 'recoverable', finding that the latter refers to the ability to obtain judgment, not the commencement of prescription. The respondent could not rely on his own inaction to delay prescription, and the claims were therefore prescribed. The appeal was upheld and...

Citation
[1997] ZASCA 112
Parties
Appellant: Uitenhage Municipality; Respondent: Molloy
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 November 1997
Case Number
332/96
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Court a Quo on Prescription Special Plea
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondent's claims dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mahomed, Smalberger, Howie, Scott, Streicher
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Employment Act Section 30, Overtime Remuneration, Special Plea of Prescription
Labour Law Civil Procedure Prescription Act Employment Act Section 30 Overtime Remuneration Special Plea of Prescription

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Uitenhage Municipality

Appellant

Molloy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Court a Quo on Prescription Special Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's claims for overtime and Sunday work remuneration had become prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether a debt under the Employment Act becomes 'due' for prescription purposes only when it is 'recoverable' under section 30(3) of the Employment Act.
  3. 3 Whether the procedural requirements of section 30(3) of the Employment Act postpone the running of prescription.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's claims for overtime and Sunday work remuneration became due at the end of each month in which the work was performed, in terms of the Employment Act. Prescription commenced to run from that date, and the procedural requirements of section 30(3) of the Employment Act did not postpone the running of prescription. The court distinguished between when a debt is 'due' and when it is 'recoverable', finding that the latter refers to the ability to obtain judgment, not the commencement of prescription. The respondent could not rely on his own inaction to delay prescription, and the claims were therefore prescribed. The appeal was upheld and...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondent's claims dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the court a quo is substituted with: 'The plaintiff's claims are dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs attendant upon the employment of two counsel.'