Sanoj Jeewan v Transnet SOC Limited and Another

The appellant, Mr Sanoj Jeewan, was employed by Transnet SOC Limited as a Corporate Governance Manager from October 2006. Following a forensic investigation by Ernest & Young, Transnet charged him with misconduct relating to an alleged fraudulent scheme. After disciplinary proceedings, Mr Jeewan was dismissed on 14 May 2010. He referred an unfair dismissal dispute to the Transnet Bargaining Council, ultimately pursuing only procedural unfairness. On 1 February 2012, the arbitrator found the dismissal procedurally fair. No review was launched. On 29 January 2015, Mr Jeewan instituted a High Court action against Transnet and EY claiming approximately R57 million in contractual damages, alternatively delictual damages, arising from his dismissal. Transnet raised special pleas of lack of jurisdiction, prescription, and res judicata. The High Court upheld all three. Mr Jeewan appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed except insofar as it related to jurisdiction and res judicata. The High Court order was set aside and replaced with an order upholding the special plea of prescription, dismissing the special pleas of jurisdiction and res judicata, dismissing the plaintiff’s claim, and making no order as to costs. No costs order was made in the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The case affirms that claims for contractual or delictual damages arising from dismissal prescribe from the date of dismissal, not from the outcome of labour dispute resolution processes. It clarifies that participation in arbitration proceedings under the LRA does not suspend or interrupt prescription for parallel common-law claims and limits the application of constitutional arguments to extend prescription periods.