Be careful what you ask for – NEHAWU obo Tumana v CCMA & Others [2011] ZALCPE10

Posted: December 5, 2011 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , ,

The employee obtained an arbitration award in her favour awarding her compensation in the amount of R 95 401. The employee however sought reinstatement and took the award on review. The employer some time later applied to have the review application dismissed on the basis of the employee’s failure to prosecute her review application. The employer succeeded and the employee shortly thereafter sought payment of the R 95 401 awarded to her. This despite, the employee then sought leave to appeal against the order dismissing her review application.

The Labour Court, per Lallie AJ, found that on the doctrine of peremption was applicable as the employee in seeking payment of the amount awarded accepted the order dismissing the review application. The employee was thus precluded from applying for leave to appeal as that would constitute her taking up two totally inconsistent positions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s