Ampath Trust t/a Dr Bouwer and Partners Inc v Dlala and Others (D375/08) [2009] ZALC 244 (1 January 2009)

Ampath Trust t/a Dr Bouwer and Partners Inc v Dlala and Others (D375/08) [2009] ZALC 244 (1 January 2009)

The court found that the applicant failed to present corroborating evidence to support the allegations against the first respondent. The second respondent, faced with conflicting statements and no supporting documentation or witnesses, reasonably concluded that the applicant had not proved on a balance of probabilities that the first respondent was guilty of misconduct. The applicant's representative ignored repeated advice to prove the documentary evidence and failed to call witnesses who could have corroborated the allegations. The court held that the second respondent's conduct during the arbitration did not amount to misconduct or gross irregularity and was consistent with the...

Citation
[2009] ZALC 244
Parties
Applicant: Ampath Trust t/a Dr Bouwer and Partners Inc; Respondent: KM Dlala; Respondent: Commissioner Kemi N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 January 2009
Case Number
D375/08
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Gush
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Procedural Fairness, Onus of Proof
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Procedural Fairness Onus of Proof

Case Brief

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ampath Trust t/a Dr Bouwer and Partners Inc

Applicant

KM Dlala

Respondent

Commissioner Kemi N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award finding the dismissal of the first respondent was substantively and procedurally unfair is reviewable.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant proved on a balance of probabilities that the first respondent was guilty of misconduct.
  3. 3 Whether the second respondent committed reviewable misconduct or gross irregularity in conducting the arbitration.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to present corroborating evidence to support the allegations against the first respondent. The second respondent, faced with conflicting statements and no supporting documentation or witnesses, reasonably concluded that the applicant had not proved on a balance of probabilities that the first respondent was guilty of misconduct. The applicant's representative ignored repeated advice to prove the documentary evidence and failed to call witnesses who could have corroborated the allegations. The court held that the second respondent's conduct during the arbitration did not amount to misconduct or gross irregularity and was consistent with the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant's application to review and set aside the arbitration award is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.