An Examination of South African Municipal Workers Union obo Koopman v City of Cape Town and Others (CA5/2023) [2025] ZALAC 7 (22 January 2025)

In South Africa, the principle of prescription, which sets time limits within which a legal claim must be instituted, is a fundamental aspect of both civil and labour law. 

Prescription serves to promote legal certainty and fairness by ensuring that claims are brought in a timely manner and that disputes are resolved within a reasonable period.

 In the case of South African Municipal Workers Union obo Koopman v City of Cape Town and Others (CA5/2023) [2025] ZALAC 7, the issue of prescription was central to the legal argument and its resolution provides important insights into the application of prescription in labour disputes.

This appeal addressed a question of law of whether an arbitration award is a debt and if certified, whether it becomes a judgment which would prescribing after 30 years, as defined in the Prescription Act.  

Background of the Case

The Appellant, Mr Koopman, was dismissed in February 2014 by the first respondent, the City of Cape Town, after the Respondent followed a disciplinary hearing. 

The aggrieved Appellant referred a dispute for an unfair dismissal to the South African Local Government Bargaining Council (SALGBG). 

The council issued an award in favour of Mr Koopman, ordering his retrospective reinstatement to 25 February 2014 with backpay. 

The Appellant certified the award in August 2022 in terms of section 143(3) of the Labour Relations Act, which was followed by an ex-parte contempt application against the City for failing to comply with the certified arbitration award. 

This application was instituted on 30 June 2023 and on 25 July 2023, the Labour Court issued rule nisi calling on the respondents to show cause why they should not be held in contempt.

Legal Issues and Court’s Findings

One of the primary issues in the case was determining whether the claim brought by Koopman had prescribed. The City of Cape Town contended that the claim was time-barred, meaning that the prescription period had elapsed, and thus Koopman was no longer entitled to pursue the matter. In contrast, SAMWU argued that the claim was still within the prescribed period and should proceed to adjudication.

The court a quo found that the award had prescribed in terms of section 11(d) of the Prescription Act as it was a debt. The court a quo based its ruling on the findings  in NUM obo Majebe v Civil and General Contractors [2020] ZALAC 56; [2021] 4 BLLR 374 (LAC) and Motsoaledi and Others v Mabuza [2018] ZALAC 43; (2019) 40 ILJ 117 (LAC).

The court a quo thus concluded that the award had prescribed five years before it was certified in 2017. There was further no evidence of a review application being filed, which would have interrupted prescription. 

The court further referred to the finding in Tony Gois t/a Shakespeare’s Pub v Van Zyl and Others [2003] 11 BLLR 1176 (LC); 2011 (1) SA 148 (LC), where it was found that certification does not clothe an arbitration award with the status of a judgment, which means that it would still prescribe after three years. 

Implications of the Judgment

The ruling in Koopman v City of Cape Town provides important clarification regarding the prescription period in labour disputes. 

The judgment also highlights the significance of the legal principle of certainty in the resolution of labour disputes. 

For legal practitioners and labour law experts, this case offers valuable insights into the interpretation and application of prescription in labour matters. 

Conclusion

The case of South African Municipal Workers Union obo Koopman v City of Cape Town and Others (CA5/2023) [2025] ZALAC 7, reinforces the significance of prescription in labour law disputes. It clarifies the application of the Prescription Act and the Labour Relations Act in determining the time within which an award can be enforced. As with any area of law, the prescription period serves as a tool for maintaining fairness and consistency in the legal system, and this case serves as an important reminder of its practical implications in labour disputes.

 

– Leon Theron