South Africa Case Law

South African Transport and Allied Workers' Union obo Masiteng v Scopeful 21 t/a Maluti Bus Services (JA18/2015)

South African Transport and Allied Workers' Union obo Masiteng v Scopeful 21 t/a Maluti Bus Services (JA18/2015) [2017] ZALAC 58 (18 October 2017)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA18/2015

Judges

Coppin, Sutherland, Savage

The Labour Appeal Court held that, following the Constitutional Court's decision in Myathaza, the arbitration award had not prescribed under the Prescription Act. The Court found that either the Prescription Act does not apply to such awards, or, if it does, the award is not a 'debt' as contemplated by the Act. Alternatively, even if prescription applies, the review application interrupted prescription until all legal proceedings were finalised. The respondent's opposition to the appeal was justified until the Constitutional Court clarified the law, after which the respondent withdrew opposit…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Of Arbitration Awards
• Section 158 1 C Lra
• Review Application Interruption
• Costs Award
• Application Of Prescription Act

Combrink v Doves Funerals (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR3083/06)

Combrink v Doves Funerals (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR3083/06) [2016] ZALCJHB 188 (20 May 2016)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR3083/06

Judge

Rabkin-Naicker

The court found that the arbitration award under case number MP808/06 had prescribed because the application to make the award an order of court was not served on the respondent within the three-year prescription period following the award's issuance. The stay of enforcement obtained by the respondent did not interrupt the running of prescription, as a review application does not constitute a process whereby the creditor claims payment of the debt. The Labour Appeal Court authority in Myathaza v Johannesburg Metropolitan Bus Service (SOC) Ltd t/a Metrobus and related cases was binding, confir…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Of Arbitration Awards
• Enforcement Of Arbitration Awards
• Review Of Arbitration Awards
• Labour Relations Act
• Interruption Of Prescription

National Union of Mineworkers obo Majebe v Civil & General Contractors (P501/13)

National Union of Mineworkers obo Majebe v Civil & General Contractors (P501/13) [2015] ZALCPE 55 (20 November 2015)

Court

Labour Court Port Elizabeth

Case number

P501/13

Judge

Lallie

The court held that the arbitration award issued by the CCMA on 19 June 2007 constituted a 'debt' under the Prescription Act and was subject to a three-year prescriptive period. Prescription commenced 21 days after the award was issued, as stipulated in the award, and was not interrupted by the filing of the review application. Section 145(9) of the LRA, which provides for interruption of prescription by a review application, only applies to awards issued after 1 January 2015. As the award in question was issued before this date, the application to make the award an order of court was dismiss…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Of Arbitration Awards
• Unfair Dismissal
• Review Application
• Reinstatement Orders

AON South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2766/04)

AON South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2766/04) [2011] ZALCJHB 167 (21 September 2011)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR2766/04

Judge

Cook

The Labour Court held that the award had not prescribed, dismissed the review for delay, made the CCMA award an order of court, and awarded costs to the employee.

• Prescription Of Arbitration Awards
• Failure To Prosecute
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Unreasonable Delay
• Interruption Of Prescription
• Prescription-of-arbitration-awards

Titus v South African Police Services and Another (D 610/08)

Titus v South African Police Services and Another (D 610/08) [2010] ZALC 237 (5 February 2010)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

D 610/08

Judge

Conradie AJ

The court found that the arbitration award issued on 18 February 2005 had prescribed, as the application to make it an order of court was only launched on 22 May 2009, well outside the three-year period for enforcement and the four-year period for prescription of the award itself. The applicant's right to enforce the award had lapsed, and the award could not be made an order of court. The court aligned itself with established Labour Court jurisprudence on prescription of arbitration awards and dismissed the application. Costs were awarded against the applicant, including the costs of senior c…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Of Arbitration Awards
• Unfair Labour Practice Promotion
• Enforcement Of Awards
• Costs Orders