City Express Stores (Pty) Ltd v Mokhothu (J884/00) [2001] ZALC 115 (2 August 2001)

City Express Stores (Pty) Ltd v Mokhothu (J884/00) [2001] ZALC 115 (2 August 2001)

The court found that the CCMA commissioner committed a gross misdirection by accepting hearsay evidence regarding the alleged theft and failing to properly investigate whether the money was actually placed in the safe. The evidence presented did not prove, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr Mokhothu stole the money. Furthermore, the commissioner erred in finding inconsistency in sanction without sufficient factual basis, as the manageress was not called to testify and her role in the incident was not clarified. In light of these deficiencies, the award was reviewed and set aside, and the matter was remitted to the CCMA for rehearing.

Citation
[2001] ZALC 115
Parties
Applicant: City Express Stores (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Ernest Johannes Mokhothu
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 August 2001
Case Number
J884/00
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Labour Court Review of CCMA Arbitration Award
Outcome
CCMA award set aside and matter remitted for rehearing. Costs awarded against first and second respondents.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Burden of Proof, Inconsistency in Sanction
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Burden of Proof Inconsistency in Sanction

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

City Express Stores (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Ernest Johannes Mokhothu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Labour Court Review of CCMA Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CCMA commissioner correctly found that Mr Mokhothu's dismissal was unfair.
  2. 2 Whether theft by Mr Mokhothu was proven on a balance of probabilities.
  3. 3 Whether the sanction imposed on Mr Mokhothu was inconsistent with that imposed on the manageress.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the CCMA commissioner committed a gross misdirection by accepting hearsay evidence regarding the alleged theft and failing to properly investigate whether the money was actually placed in the safe. The evidence presented did not prove, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr Mokhothu stole the money. Furthermore, the commissioner erred in finding inconsistency in sanction without sufficient factual basis, as the manageress was not called to testify and her role in the incident was not clarified. In light of these deficiencies, the award was reviewed and set aside, and the matter was remitted to the CCMA for rehearing.

Court Disposition

CCMA award set aside and matter remitted for rehearing. Costs awarded against first and second respondents.

Orders

  • The CCMA award dated 21 January 2000 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The matter is remitted to the CCMA for rehearing.