Central Technical Supplies (Pty) Ltd v Kazondunge (LCA 69 of 2011) [2012] NALC 7 (22 March 2012)

Central Technical Supplies (Pty) Ltd v Kazondunge (LCA 69 of 2011) [2012] NALC 7 (22 March 2012)

The dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair because the employer failed to establish the infraction on a balance of probabilities and did not follow its own disciplinary code regarding sanctions. The respondent was not given an opportunity to be heard before a more severe sanction was imposed, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] NALC 7
Parties
Appellant: Central Technical Supplies (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Helga Kazondunge; Arbitrator: Moses Shitaleni Inane
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
22 March 2012
Case Number
LCA 69 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Labour Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness, Disciplinary Code, Sanctions for Misconduct, Reinstatement
Source Language
english
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness Disciplinary Code Sanctions for Misconduct Reinstatement

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Central Technical Supplies (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Helga Kazondunge

Respondent

Moses Shitaleni Inane

Arbitrator

Procedural Posture

Labour Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the respondent was substantively and procedurally fair
  2. 2 Whether the employer followed its own disciplinary code in imposing the sanction of dismissal
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator erred in finding for the respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The dismissal was both substantively and procedurally unfair because the employer failed to establish the infraction on a balance of probabilities and did not follow its own disciplinary code regarding sanctions. The respondent was not given an opportunity to be heard before a more severe sanction was imposed, and the evidence did not support a finding of theft or a breakdown of trust justifying dismissal.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs