M Denhere v CIMAS

The applicant sought to appeal against orders of the labour court granted on 23 May 2003 and 13 July 2004. The first order gave the employer the option not to reinstate the applicant but to pay damages in lieu of reinstatement. The labour court quantified the damages to be paid to the applicant on 6 July 2004. The applicant did not appeal against the first order until after it was executed by the employer. The second order of 13 July 2004 was granted in default of appearance by the applicant. The applicant accepted payment of damages in lieu of reinstatement and used part of the money. He then brought a chamber application for condonation of late noting of appeal and for extension of time within which to note an appeal.

• Whether condonation should be granted for the late noting of appeal against labour court orders
• Whether an order giving an employer the option to pay damages in lieu of reinstatement can be appealed on the basis that it is unfair
• Whether a default order can be appealed without first applying for rescission
• Whether acceptance of payment constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal

The application for condonation of the late noting of appeal and for extension of time within which to note an appeal was dismissed with costs.

1. An order giving an employer the option to pay damages in lieu of reinstatement cannot be appealed on the ground that it is unfair where there is a valid law empowering the labour court to grant such an option. 2. Disagreement with a law ("bad law") is not a ground of appeal against an order made in terms of that law where the validity of the law has not been successfully challenged in a court of law. 3. A default order is not appealable unless the applicant first applies for rescission of that order. 4. Acceptance of payment made pursuant to a court order and use of such money constitutes a waiver of the right to challenge the correctness of that order.

The court observed that the applicant appeared to believe he was unfairly treated, but noted this perception was misplaced given the existence of statutory authority for the labour court's actions. The judgment suggests that litigants must properly understand the legal framework within which orders are made and cannot simply challenge orders on the basis of subjective views about fairness when the law clearly authorizes such orders.

This case illustrates important principles regarding the timing of appeals in labour law matters, the proper procedure for challenging default orders (requiring rescission applications first), and the doctrine of waiver through acceptance of benefits. It confirms the validity of labour court orders giving employers the option to pay damages in lieu of reinstatement, and clarifies that disagreement with the law itself is not a ground of appeal where the law's validity has not been successfully challenged.