In a January 2025 judgment the high court dealt with a claim of unfair dismissal brought by the South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU) on behalf of an employee of the City of Cape Town and other respondents. The central issue in this case was whether the arbitration award in favour of the employee had prescribed and whether it could still be enforced. The court dismissed the application to enforce the arbitration award, finding that it had prescribed by the time it was certified
The employee was dismissed by the City of Cape Town following a disciplinary hearing in February 2014. Aggrieved by the decision, he referred the matter to the South African Local Government Bargaining Council (SALGBC), which ruled in his favour and issued an arbitration award ordering his retrospective reinstatement with backpay to 25 February 2014. However, the award was only certified and became enforceable in August 2022. The employee subsequently sought to enforce it through contempt proceedings against the city for failing to comply with the award.
The primary legal issue was whether the arbitration award had prescribed by the time it was certified and whether it could still be enforced. The court had to determine if the arbitration award constituted a “debt” under the Prescription Act and if the certification of the award extended the prescription period.
The court examined the legal principles surrounding the prescription of arbitration awards. The Prescription Act, which stipulates that debts prescribe after three years unless interrupted. The court considered previous judgments, which held that arbitration awards are debts that prescribe after three years.
The court found that the arbitration award in favour of the employee had prescribed in 2017, three years after it was issued. The court noted that there was no evidence of a review application being filed, which could have interrupted the prescription period. The court held that the certification of the award in 2022 did not extend the prescription period, because certification does not change the status of the award to that of a court judgment with a 30-year prescription period.
The court dismissed the application to enforce the arbitration award, finding that it had prescribed by the time it was certified. The court held that the arbitration award constituted a debt under the Prescription Act and that the three-year prescription period had lapsed without interruption. The court also noted that the employee had failed to tender his services following the award, which was necessary for the enforcement of a reinstatement order.
This case underscores the importance of timely action in enforcing arbitration awards. The court’s decision highlights that arbitration awards are subject to the same prescription periods as other debts under the Prescription Act. The ruling emphasises that certification of an arbitration award does not extend the prescription period and that claimants must act within the prescribed time frame to enforce their rights.