Judgment of the Labour Chamber of the Supreme Court of 18 December 2025
Conformity of the Supreme Court decision with the ruling issued by the Constitutional Court on 6 December 2024 (Case No. 941/2024)
The judgment in question was delivered in the context of a dispute concerning a disciplinary dismissal.
Following his dismissal, the employee brought an action before the Labour Division of the then Provincial Court of Luanda, and the action was dismissed, with the employer being acquitted.
On appeal, the Higher Court overturned the decision of the court below and declared the dismissal null and void. However, despite having declared the nullity of the dismissal, it decided to apply to the case the consequences provided for an unfounded dismissal, basing its decision on settled case law of that court, according to which, where a lengthy period of time has elapsed between the dismissal and the judgment (in the present case, approximately 9 years), it would be more sensible and fair to apply the regime applicable to unfounded dismissal.
Indeed, in the case of a null dismissal, reinstatement of the employee is mandatory, there being no option to choose between reinstatement and compensation, whereas in the case of an unfounded dismissal the employer has the option of compensating the employee as an alternative to reinstatement.
Furthermore, in cases of nullity, not only the base salary but also the supplements forming part of the employee's remuneration are claimable, whereas in unfounded dismissal cases only the base salary is claimable, subject to a cap dependent on the employee's length of service.
Dissatisfied, the Appellant lodged an Extraordinary Appeal on Grounds of Unconstitutionality before the Constitutional Court, which upheld the appeal and declared the appealed judgment unconstitutional, on the grounds that the Supreme Court's decision violated the constitutional principles of fair trial and of favour laboratoris. The Constitutional Court recalled that the latter principle requires that, where several possible interpretive approaches exist, the one most favourable to the interests of employees must be chosen, and that the former requires the parties to proceedings receive impartial, equitable treatment consistent with established law at all stages of the proceedings.
According to the Constitutional Court, deriving from a mandatory provision consequences other than those legally prescribed distorts the purpose of the rules and undermines legal certainty and security.
This decision reaffirms that the legal classification of a dismissal as null requires the full application of the corresponding legal regime, and courts may not substitute it with the regime applicable to unfounded dismissal.