Umgeni Water and Others v Mshengu (03/09) [2009] ZASCA 148; [2010] 2 All SA 505 (SCA) ; (2010) 31 ILJ 88 (SCA) (26 November 2009)

Umgeni Water and Others v Mshengu (03/09) [2009] ZASCA 148; [2010] 2 All SA 505 (SCA) ; (2010) 31 ILJ 88 (SCA) (26 November 2009)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's cause of action for the retirement benefit did not arise on 1 April 2003, as his dismissal was operative and prevented him from claiming the benefit. Only after the CCMA and Labour Court found the dismissal to be unfair could the respondent allege all material facts necessary for his claim. Therefore, prescription did not begin to run until the dismissal was set aside, and the claim was not prescribed when the summons was served. The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

Citation
[2009] ZASCA 148
Parties
Appellant: Umgeni Water; Appellant: Principal Officer of the Umgeni Water Retirement Fund; Appellant: Ministry of Water Affairs; Respondent: Bonginkosi Vincent Mshengu
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 November 2009
Case Number
03/09
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pietermaritzburg High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs reserved by the court below.
Judges
MPATI, NUGENT, PONNAN, HURT, WALLIS
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Retirement Benefits, Dismissal, Cause of Action, Unfair Dismissal
Civil Procedure Labour Law Prescription Act Retirement Benefits Dismissal Cause of Action 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Umgeni Water

Appellant

Principal Officer of the Umgeni Water Retirement Fund

Appellant

Ministry of Water Affairs

Appellant

Bonginkosi Vincent Mshengu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pietermaritzburg High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's claim for retirement benefits had prescribed before summons was served on 29 June 2007.
  2. 2 When did the cause of action for the retirement benefit arise or accrue in light of the dismissal and subsequent CCMA and Labour Court proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's cause of action for the retirement benefit did not arise on 1 April 2003, as his dismissal was operative and prevented him from claiming the benefit. Only after the CCMA and Labour Court found the dismissal to be unfair could the respondent allege all material facts necessary for his claim. Therefore, prescription did not begin to run until the dismissal was set aside, and the claim was not prescribed when the summons was served. The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs reserved by the court below.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include those reserved by the court below for determination by this court.