Adams v Jooma N.O. and Others [2026] ZALCCT 50

2. Seat of the Court The Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town

3. Presiding Judge: De Kock, AJ (Acting Judge)

4. Summary of the Basis of the Claim

The Applicant, Ms Vanessa Adams, referred a dispute to the Labour Court seeking declaratory relief that she was an employee of the Fourth Respondent (Western Cape Government Department of Cultural Affairs and Sport) in terms of section 200A of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 ("the LRA"); that she was unfairly dismissed in terms of section 185(a) of the LRA; and that she be awarded appropriate relief in terms of section 193(1) of the LRA. The Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents raised preliminary objections on the grounds that: (i) the Applicant ought to have referred the unfair dismissal dispute to the relevant bargaining council before approaching the Labour Court; and (ii) the Applicant was an independent contractor contracted by the Third Respondent (Quantum Leap Consulting (Pty) Ltd) and not an employee of the State.

5. Analysis and Findings of the Court with Direct Quotations

On Jurisdiction and the Proper Forum:

"[6] The issue before this Court is first and foremost an allegation of an unfair dismissal. It matters not whether the alleged dismissal was done by the Third, Fourth or Fifth Respondents. What matters is that, since this is an alleged unfair dismissal dispute, whether for misconduct, incapacity or operational requirements, this Court lacks jurisdiction to determine the alleged dismissal dispute as a court of first instance. The jurisdiction to determine the alleged unfair dismissal lies with the relevant bargaining council." (para 6)

"[7] The question of whether Adams was an employee or an independent contractor, and if she was an employee, whether the Third, Fourth or Fifth Respondent was her employer does not clothe this Court with jurisdiction to hear the matter as a court of first instance. The correct forum is the relevant bargaining council where Adams would have been required to firstly prove that she was an employee and not an independent contractor and once she was able to show that she was an employee, to prove who her employer was." (para 7)

On Section 200A of the LRA:

"[11] Section 200A(2), however, states that subsection (1) does not apply to any person who earns in excess of the amount determined by the Minister in terms of section 6(3) of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act ('BCEA')." (para 11)

"[12] It is undisputed that Adams at all material times earned in excess of the threshold amount as determined by the Minister in terms of section 200A(2). That being the case, Adams is not able to rely on the provisions of section 200A in support of her claim that she was an employee of the Fourth Respondent or of any other Respondent for that matter. The relief sought in terms of section 200A must therefore be dismissed." (para 12)

On the Unfair Dismissal Claim and Compulsory Dispute Resolution:

"[14] The LRA establishes a compulsory dispute-resolution scheme under which ordinary unfair dismissal disputes must be referred to conciliation and, if unresolved, to arbitration. The Labour Court's jurisdiction as a court of first instance is limited to those categories of dispute expressly conferred upon it by statute, such as automatically unfair dismissals under section 187 and matters referred by the CCMA Director under section 191(6). Adams, however, has not alleged that her alleged unfair dismissal falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The allegation that Adams was unfairly dismissed falls squarely within the provisions of section 191(5)(a), which requires that the dispute must be arbitrated by the CCMA or a relevant bargaining council. It is important to note that the use of the word 'must' leaves this Court with no power to determine the dispute as a court of first instance." (para 14)

On the Late Introduction of a New Cause of Action (Section 77(3) BCEA):

"[15] ... A new cause of action may not be introduced at the stage of heads of argument or oral submissions where it was not pleaded in the notice of motion." (para 15)

"Section 77(3) of the BCEA confers jurisdiction in respect of matters 'concerning a contract of employment.' Before Adams could engage that jurisdiction, she would first be required to establish the existence of a contract of employment with the relevant respondent. On Adams' own pleaded case, no contract of employment exists between her and the Fourth or Fifth Respondents, and the contract between her and the Third Respondent is expressly one of independent contractorship. Section 77(3) therefore affords Adams no basis for relief in these proceedings." (para 15)

6. Order of the Court

"Order

1. The referral is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

2. There is no order as to costs." (para 22)