South Africa Case Law

MEC for Health, KwaZulu-Natal v King and Others; Department of Correctional Services v Balkaran NO and Others (D2110/18 ; D67/21)

MEC for Health, KwaZulu-Natal v King and Others; Department of Correctional Services v Balkaran NO and Others (D2110/18 ; D67/21) [2025] ZALCD 15; (2025) 46 ILJ 1957 (LC) (31 March 2025)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D2110/18 ; D67/21

Judge

M Makhura

The Labour Court held that the commissioners in both matters committed a material error by failing to enquire into their jurisdiction to arbitrate disputes referred many years after the cause of action arose. The Court found that, despite section 24 of the LRA not prescribing a referral period, disputes must be referred within a reasonable time, with section 191(1) serving as a benchmark. The commissioners should have required the parties to address jurisdiction and delay, especially given the retrospective relief sought. The awards were reviewed and set aside, and the matters remitted for fr…

Source excerpt

• Collective Agreement Interpretation
• Jurisdiction Of Bargaining Council
• Delay In Referral
• Condonation
• Prescription Act Application
• Arbitration Award Review

Tarica and Another v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (2023/044543)

Tarica and Another v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (2023/044543) [2025] ZAGPJHC 46 (27 January 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/044543

Judge

Mahon

The court found that the applicants had raised a valid and ongoing dispute regarding the accuracy of the municipal account, satisfying all statutory requirements under section 102(2) of the Municipal Systems Act. The respondent failed to discharge its burden of proving the correctness of the charges, particularly those based on faulty or removed meters and implausible consumption figures. The respondent's argument that its internal policy could suspend the operation of prescription was rejected; the Prescription Act applies independently of municipal administrative practices. Charges older th…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Services Billing
• Prescription Act Application
• Consumer Rights
• Municipal Account Disputes

Mondoclox (PTY) Ltd v Branch and Another (3581/2021)

Mondoclox (PTY) Ltd v Branch and Another (3581/2021) [2022] ZAECMKHC 118 (15 December 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

3581/2021

Judge

Bloem

The court found that the outbuilding on the first respondent's property was erected over the building line without the written consent of the previous owner and without proper municipal approval for such encroachment. The respondent failed to provide credible evidence of consent or approval. The applicant's claim was not prescribed, as the relief sought did not constitute a 'debt' under the Prescription Act. The applicant's director was duly authorised to institute proceedings. The court held that the appropriate remedy was a partial demolition order, subject to the outcome of an engineering…

Source excerpt

• Building Line Encroachment
• National Building Regulations
• Municipal Land Use Scheme
• Prescription Act Application
• Authority To Institute Proceedings

Special Investigating Unit and Another v Maczola Tours CC and Others (NW01/2020)

Special Investigating Unit and Another v Maczola Tours CC and Others (NW01/2020) [2022] ZAST 24 (19 October 2022)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

NW01/2020

Judge

L.T. Modiba

The Special Tribunal held that the scholar transport claim had not prescribed and that the first respondent likely inflated kilometre claims, but required further proof of the amount.

• Public Procurement Irregularities
• Prescription Act Application
• Joint And Several Liability
• Scholar Transport Tender
• Special Investigating Unit
• Monetary Relief

Puma Energy Procurement South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for The South African Revenue Service (A86/2021)

Puma Energy Procurement South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for The South African Revenue Service (A86/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 714 (20 September 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A86/2021

Judges

S. Potterill, L.M. Molopa, T.P. Bokako

The High Court held that prescription did not bar a section 11(a) income tax deduction for losses, and sent the tax dispute back to the Tax Court.

• Prescription Act Application
• Income Tax Deduction
• Customs And Excise Refund
• Understatement Penalty
• Tax-deduction
• Prescription

SAMWU obo Shongwe and Others v Moloi N.O and Others (JA81/19)

SAMWU obo Shongwe and Others v Moloi N.O and Others (JA81/19) [2021] ZALAC 2; [2021] 5 BLLR 464 (LAC); (2021) 42 ILJ 1061 (LAC) (26 February 2021)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA81/19

Judges

Phatshoane, Coppin, Kathree-Setiloane

The Labour Court erred in refusing condonation for the late filing of the rule 7A(8)(b) notice and in dismissing the review application. The delay was satisfactorily explained by the appellant, who took active steps to remedy the situation, including changing attorneys and pursuing the matter diligently. The prejudice to the third respondent was not significant, and the interests of justice required that the merits of the review be considered. The arbitrator's ruling was materially irregular, as the issue of prescription was not properly before him and the referral to the CCMA could not presc…

Source excerpt

• Condonation Of Late Filing
• Review Of Jurisdictional Ruling
• Prescription Act Application
• Collective Agreement Interpretation

SAMWU obo Shongwe and Others v Commissioner Moloi NO and Others (JA81/19)

SAMWU obo Shongwe and Others v Commissioner Moloi NO and Others (JA81/19) [2020] ZALAC 67 (7 December 2020)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA81/19

Judges

Phatshoane, Coppin, Kathree-Setiloane

The Labour Appeal Court upheld an appeal on condonation and review, set aside a jurisdictional ruling on prescription, and sent the dispute back to the CCMA.

• Condonation Of Late Filing
• Review Of Jurisdictional Ruling
• Prescription Act Application
• Collective Agreement Interpretation
• Delay In Prosecution
• Rule 7a Notice

Minister of Water and Sanitation v Amathole District Municipality (1040/2018)

Minister of Water and Sanitation v Amathole District Municipality (1040/2018) [2020] ZAECELLC 13; 2021 (4) SA 252 (ECG) (1 September 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

1040/2018

Judge

Griffiths

The court held that the defendant's obligations to pay water use charges and research levies, as pleaded by the plaintiff, arise from constitutional duties and statutory provisions enacted to give effect to the right of access to water. These obligations are not debts as contemplated by the Prescription Act and do not prescribe. Even if the debts arising from subordinate legislation have prescribed, the court retains the power under section 172 of the Constitution to consider such debts when granting just and equitable relief. The principle of subsidiarity does not bar the plaintiff from seek…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act Application
• Constitutional Obligations
• Subsidiarity Principle
• Water Use Charges
• Declaration Of Invalidity

Goliath v Rocklands Poultry Loss Control/Sovereign Foods (P295/15)

Goliath v Rocklands Poultry Loss Control/Sovereign Foods (P295/15) [2019] ZALCPE 18 (7 November 2019)

Court

Labour Court Port Elizabeth

Case number

P295/15

Judge

D Mahosi

The court held that the arbitration award ordering the applicant's reinstatement constitutes a debt to which the Prescription Act applies. Prescription began running from the date of dismissal and was interrupted by referral to the CCMA. As there was no review of the award, the publication of the award gave rise to a new prescription period of 30 years, which had not expired when the application was filed. The respondent's jurisdictional challenge based on non-joinder at conciliation was rejected, as the joinder ruling and arbitration award were binding and had not been reviewed or set aside.…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act Application
• Arbitration Award Enforcement
• Unfair Dismissal
• Joinder
• Condonation Of Late Filing

NUMSA obo Masana v Gili Pipe Irrigation (Pty) Ltd (JA 90/2016)

NUMSA obo Masana v Gili Pipe Irrigation (Pty) Ltd (JA 90/2016) [2018] ZALAC 51; (2019) 40 ILJ 813 (LAC) (12 December 2018)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA 90/2016

Judges

Sutherland, Jappie, Murphy

The Labour Appeal Court held that the Labour Court erred in its computation and application of prescription. The Constitutional Court has clarified that the Prescription Act applies to labour litigation, and that referral to conciliation and the institution of review proceedings interrupt prescription. On the facts, the periods during which prescription ran did not total three years, and thus the right to enforce the award had not prescribed. The Labour Court's dismissal of the rescission application on the basis of prescription was incorrect. The appeal was upheld, and the matter remitted to…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act Application
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Arbitration Award Enforcement
• Condonation
• Interruption Of Prescription