Bennett v Curro Holdings Limited (2024/141557) [2025] ZAWCHC 505 (31 October 2025)

Case Note

Beverley B P Bennett v Curro Holdings Limited
Case No: 2024-141557
High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division, Cape Town)
Heard on: 30 October 2025
Delivered on: 31 October 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its significant implications regarding jurisdictional limits between the High Court and the Labour Court in South Africa. The court clarified the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court over disputes arising from employment relationships, underlining the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995. This judgment serves as a critical reference point for determining the proper forum for employment-related disputes, ensuring that parties are aware of jurisdictional constraints and procedural requirements. Furthermore, the case emphasizes the necessity for claimants to navigate their grievances through the accurate judicial channels to safeguard their rights while also considering the implications of contractual agreements governing arbitration.

Cases Cited

• Chirwa v Transnet Ltd and Others [2007] ZACC 23
• Fredericks and Others v MEC for Education and Training, Eastern Cape 2002 (2) SA 693 (CC)
• Baloyi v Public Protector and Others [2020] ZACC 27
• Fedlife Assurance Ltd v Wolfaardt 2002 (1) SA 49 (SCA)

Legislation Cited

• Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
• Arbitration Act 42 of 1965
• Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013

Rules of Court Cited

No specific rules of court were cited in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The case involves an application for an extension of a contractual time-bar under the Arbitration Act, pertaining to disputes following the termination of employment. The High Court found that it lacked jurisdiction over the matter, as the underlying issues related to employment and were governed by the Labour Relations Act. Consequently, the case was transferred to the Labour Court for determination, with each party bearing its own costs.

Key Issues

The key legal issues before the court were whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application brought by the applicant and, if not, whether the matter should be transferred to the Labour Court. Additionally, the question of whether the applicant demonstrated undue hardship to warrant an extension of the time-bar was significant.

Held

The High Court held that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the application, as the dispute arises from an employment relationship regulated by the Labour Relations Act. Therefore, the matter was transferred to the Labour Court where it should be adjudicated. Furthermore, the court determined that each party should bear its own costs due to their good faith engagement in the proceedings.

THE FACTS

The applicant, Beverley B P Bennett, filed an application for an extension of a contractual time-bar following the termination of her employment with the respondent, Curro Holdings Limited. Bennett's employment termination had raised issues regarding her remuneration, bonuses, and share allocations, leading her to refer several disputes to the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) and subsequently to the Arbitration Foundation of Southern Africa (AFSA). The respondent opposed this application, claiming jurisdictional constraints as indicated by the arbitration clause in the employment contract.

Upon referral of the disputes to the Labour Court, the applicant faced objections relating to procedural timelines. Specifically, the respondent contended that Bennett referred her claims outside the prescribed 30-day period following her dismissal. The arbitrator, therefore, stayed the proceedings and allowed the applicant to apply to the High Court for an extension of the deadline stipulated in the contract.

THE ISSUES

The court was tasked with determining two primary legal questions: first, whether it possessed the jurisdiction to hear the application filed by the applicant regarding the extension of the time-bar, and second, whether the applicant could demonstrate undue hardship to justify the requested extension. Furthermore, the court considered whether it was in the interest of justice to transfer the matter to the Labour Court instead of outright dismissal.

ANALYSIS

The court's analysis began with an examination of the jurisdiction conferred by Section 157(1) of the Labour Relations Act, which entrusts exclusive jurisdiction over employment-related disputes to the Labour Court. Citing precedents such as Chirwa v Transnet Ltd and Fredericks and Others v MEC for Education and Training, the court emphasized the principle that disputes implicating rights and remedies established by the Labour Relations Act must adhere to the Labour Court's authority.

Despite the applicant's framing of the issue under the Arbitration Act, the core of the dispute arose from her employment relationship and the alleged unfair conduct associated with her dismissal. As the High Court noted, the relief sought by the applicant indirectly engaged rights governed by the Labour Relations Act, confirming the Labour Court's exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. The court concluded that while the High Court acknowledged the applicant's right to pursue her claims, it must do so in the appropriate forum.

Emphasizing the need for procedural continuity, the High Court opted to transfer the application to the Labour Court in line with Section 27(1)(b) of the Superior Courts Act, facilitating the resolution without undue procedural duplication or costs.

REMEDY

In its order, the High Court declared that it lacked jurisdiction over the application, leading to the transfer of the matter to the Labour Court for determination as per the provisions of the Labour Relations Act. Each party was instructed to bear their own costs incurred in the proceedings before the High Court, acknowledging the good faith efforts of both parties.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The case establishes several key legal principles, notably that matters emerging from employment relationships that implicate rights provided by the Labour Relations Act fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The High Court should refrain from intervening in such matters and direct parties to the appropriate forum, thereby maintaining the integrity of the specialized jurisdiction established by employment legislation. The ruling also underscores the necessity for applicants to provide proper justifications for any procedural requests, such as extensions of time, emphasizing the importance of adhering to prescribed timelines in contractual agreements.