Court orders JSE-listed RCL Foods to pay over $3 million to employee
- Maintenance fitter Etienne Jourdan, who was sacked in 2013, has won the right to receive more than R3 million in compensation.
- This comes after 13 years of litigation and R2.5 million spent on legal fees.
- Acting judge at the Cape Town Labor Court Koen de Kock said what started as a straightforward reinstatement order for a worker earning about R20,000 a month turned into a “13-year legal journey”.
- The judge said JSE-listed RCL Foods' conduct in pursuing every available avenue reached “the limit of abuse of process” and its prospects of success on appeal were “at best, slim”.
After 13 years of litigation and legal fees of Rs 2.5 million, a maintenance fitter who was found wrongfully dismissed by arbitration and multiple courts is one step closer to receiving compensation.
Last week, the Cape Town Labor Court granted a ruling in favor of Etienne Jordaan, effectively ending years of litigation.
What should I follow WhatsApp | Linkedin for latest headlines
Acting Judge Koen de Kock's order – made under the Superior Courts Act – enforces the latest High Court ruling in Jordan's favor, that he be paid more than R3 million in compensation. This comes after JSE-listed company RCL Foods Consumer (Pty) Ltd (formerly Rainbow Farms) attempted to appeal again.
The judge said Jordan's application concerns whether the rule of law allows a successful litigant – “brought to the brink of financial ruin by 13 years of sustained litigation” – to enforce a judgment that has survived repeated legal challenges while awaiting a fourth appeal from a wealthy corporate rival.
The judge ruled that Jordan should be paid despite the pending appeal. If the company is later successful in its petition to the Labor Appeal Court, it can take legal action to recover the money.
read the verdict Here
Jordan was employed by the company as a maintenance fitter in Worcester. He was sacked in January 2013 for dishonesty over alleged clocking offences.
In June 2013, a commissioner of the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) found the dismissal unfair and ordered her reinstatement and back pay.
But when Jordan arrived for duty the next day, he was sent home.
The company then launched a review application, which suspended the CCMA's decision.
In December 2018, the Labor Court rejected the review application.
The company applied for permission to appeal but later abandoned the application. Instead it launched a separate declaratory application, seeking to be reimbursed for the back wages it claimed Jordan had earned elsewhere.
In April 2020, the parties reached a settlement and Jordan returned to work. However, the dues owed to him were referred to private arbitration.
Jordan was dismissed again in 2023 for another workplace offence, which he did not challenge.
But in May 2024, the arbitrator issued two awards in favor of Jordan related to an earlier dispute. RCL applied for review of these awards. Later that year the case was heard before another arbitrator.
In 2025, the arbitrator ordered the company to pay Jordan more than R3 million.
A month later, the company launched another review application, this time in the Labor Court, disputing parts of the award relating to overtime, nightshift and standby allowances.
The Labor Court rejected the application and later refused to allow the company to appeal.
Jordan then applied for a writ of execution against RCL to attach the immovable property. The company said it had petitioned for leave to appeal, which automatically suspended the 2025 decision.
Jordan approached the court to enforce the decision despite the pending appeal.
Judge de Kock said that by the time the case was heard on 5 March 2026, Jordan, based on his undisputed evidence, had spent approximately R2.5 million on legal fees, “depleted his pension fund, sold his vehicle and surrendered his insurance policy to his wife”.
Facing financial ruin, Jordan and his family relocated to Ireland.
The company raised technical issues and argued that the application was not urgent. It said Jordan could “wait a few more months” for the Labor Appeal Court to decide whether to hear the appeal.
De Kock rejected this argument, saying that the urgency arose largely because of the company's own litigation strategy and that Jordan's financial position would “deteriorate beyond the point of recovery”.
The judge said the legal threshold for enforcing a judgment pending an appeal was deliberately high and that “truly exceptional circumstances” were required to make such an order.
But, he said, the case history shows only adverse verdicts against the company.
“What started as a straightforward reinstatement order for the maintenance fitter, who earned approximately R20,000 per month, has now become a 13-year legal battle resulting in an award of R3,190,807.83 and (Jordan) associated legal costs of approximately R2.5 million.
“The financial ruin that Jordan faces is a direct and proximate result of (the company's) conduct in pursuing every available procedural avenue,” the judge said.
“(The company's) conduct borders on an abuse of process, although I have not made any formal findings to that effect.”
He also said that the company's chances of success on appeal were “very slim”.
In contrast, Jordan faced bankruptcy and the possible permanent loss of “the rights it has spent 13 years earning”.
The judge said that RCL Foods, with sufficient financial resources, faced limited risk if it paid the money now, but was successful in a subsequent appeal.
“A JSE-listed company that may face the business consequence of claiming compensation or temporarily paying the recovered amount with interest has not suffered irreparable harm,” the judge said.
De Kock ordered that the decision awarding Jordan more than R3 million be enforced despite a petition for leave to appeal to the Labor Appeal Court being enforced.