- The Labour Appeal Court confirmed that SABC board policies alone cannot convert fixed-term contracts to permanent employment, such changes require employee agreement and updated contracts.
- The ruling reversed a previous Labour Court decision that had awarded R7 million in damages to a former SABC employee.
- The judgment clarifies that changes to employment status or retirement age must be formally included in employment contracts, not just communicated through internal policies.
When Famida Yacoob Valla won her case in the Labour Court in 2023, it looked like a major breakthrough for employees on fixed-term contracts.
The court held that a 2015 SABC board resolution had effectively converted her five-year contract into permanent employment and extended her retirement age from 60 to 63. On that basis, it ruled that the expiry of her contract was a dismissal, one that was both automatically unfair and discriminatory on the grounds of age.
The ruling suggested that Valla, who left the broadcaster in April 2018, could be owed more than R7 million in damages, in addition to her costs. But on 22 September 2025, the Labour Appeal Court set aside that judgment, carefully spelling out the difference between organisational policies and binding changes to an individual’s employment contract.
The Labour Court’s wider reading
The Labour Court took a generous view of the SABC board resolution. It noted that the resolution authorised the conversion of general managers from fixed-term to permanent status “where the status of the job is permanent in nature”. Valla’s superiors told her she was now a permanent employee, and she believed this meant she could continue working until the retirement age of 63, like other permanent staff.
The court accepted her interpretation, reasoning that the context and wording of the resolution implied both a change in her employment status and an extension of her retirement age. On that basis, it held that her contract had not truly expired in April 2018. Instead, she had been dismissed, and dismissed because of her age. This made the dismissal automatically unfair under the Labour Relations Act and discriminatory under the Employment Equity Act.
The Appeal Court’s stricter approach
The Labour Appeal Court adopted a stricter reading of the law. It emphasised that even if the SABC’s board had resolved to convert certain roles, that policy could not automatically change the terms of Valla’s individual contract. There had to be a clear offer and acceptance between the employer and employee, in other words, an express agreement. No such agreement existed.
The court also found that the board resolution said nothing about extending the retirement age from 60 to 63. Retirement ages are governed by policy and pension fund rules, and in Valla’s case, both remained fixed at 60. The distinction between managerial staff (who retire at 60) and other employees (who retire at 63) was based on job categories, not age discrimination.
Because her fixed-term contract ended on the agreed date, the court ruled there was no dismissal at all. Without a dismissal, there could be no claim for unfair dismissal or unfair discrimination.
The stakes: R7 million claim vanishes
The Labour Court’s 2023 ruling had left the question of damages open, but Valla had calculated her claim at more than R7.6 million, based on three years of lost salary and pension contributions. That figure reflected what she would have earned had she remained employed until 63. The Appeal Court’s decision meant that this potential liability for the SABC disappeared entirely.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
