A Transnet corporate governance manager, regarded as a forensic “champion”, was himself fired by Transnet over fraud charges. Years later, he tried to sue the state-owned company for almost R60m.
However, the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed his claim, ruling he was out of time, setting precedent for when claims must be brought that apply to every court in SA.
Sanoj Jeewan became a corporate governance manager at Transnet in 2006 and co-ordinated investigations into forensic fraud. Years later, after a forensic investigation by Ernst & Young, Transnet laid charges against Jeewan. These related to findings of participating in fraudulent schemes with an external recruitment company.
He was eventually dismissed in 2010. Jeewan referred the dismissal to the Transnet bargaining council, arguing the dismissal was “procedurally unfair”. He claimed, for example, that the disciplinary chair was biased. But the bargaining council commission ruled in Transnet’s favour.
In 2015, Jeewan instituted a claim for R57m against Transnet in the high court. Jeewan argued that Transnet wrongly fired him and as a result he was missing out on payment until retirement that he calculated to be R57m. In response, Transnet argued Jeewan’s claim had “prescribed”, in other words had lapsed.
In terms of SA law, claims must be lodged within three years of when claimants believe they have been wronged. Jeewan’s claim stemmed from an alleged wrongful firing in 2010, Transnet said, but he only acted in 2015.
In 2022, the high court ruled in Transnet’s favour. Jeewan appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The appeal court agreed with Transnet that Jeewan had lodged his claim out of time. Writing for a unanimous court, acting judge Rishi Seegobin stressed the countdown for a claim started running when a person was “fully aware” of all the aspects needed to lodge a court claim.
Jeewan tried arguing he could not act on a claim for damages because he had referred his unfair dismissal to the bargaining council. But Seegobin said that was irrelevant.
“The fact that Mr Jeewan referred his unfair dismissal [to the bargaining council] is an election that he made at the time,” Seegobin said. “This does not, in any way, detract from the fact that his contractual debt became due.”
Seegobin stressed there were multiple court claims that could “potentially” be used for by workers when they were fired. Jeewan only used one claim.
“It was only when the [bargaining council] award was made against him that he decided to ... sue for damages,” Seegobin said. “By then it was already five years down the line and his claim had already prescribed.”
The judgment sets precedent for when claims must be lodged, so that they are not dismissed out of hand by a court. The appeal court also clarified that labour disputes should not and were not blockades to other court claims, such as claims for damages. This, the court said, was Jeewan’s mistake and must not be replicated by others.
The court made no costs order.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.