Defensor Security v Mabalane NO and Others (JR922/07) [2009] ZALCJHB 28 (30 January 2009)

Defensor Security v Mabalane NO and Others (JR922/07) [2009] ZALCJHB 28 (30 January 2009)

The court found that the commissioner was faced with two mutually destructive versions regarding whether the third respondent was dismissed. The commissioner made a credibility finding in favour of the third respondent, whose version was more probable given the context of the security strike and the lack of evidence that he absconded. The applicant failed to charge the third respondent with abscondment or provide a reasonable explanation for his absence. The review test, as set out in Sidumo, is whether the commissioner’s decision was one that a reasonable decision maker could reach. The court held that the commissioner’s decision met this standard and that none of the grounds of review...

Citation
[2009] ZALCJHB 28
Parties
Applicant: Defensor Security; Respondent: Steven Mabalane N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Sanki Joseph Liphoko
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 January 2009
Case Number
JR922/07
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Francis
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Reasonableness Standard, Reinstatement, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Reasonableness Standard Reinstatement Procedural Fairness

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

Parties

Defensor Security

Applicant

Steven Mabalane N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Sanki Joseph Liphoko

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third respondent was dismissed by the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal, if established, was procedurally and substantively unfair.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award should be reviewed and set aside on grounds of unreasonableness or gross irregularity.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner was faced with two mutually destructive versions regarding whether the third respondent was dismissed. The commissioner made a credibility finding in favour of the third respondent, whose version was more probable given the context of the security strike and the lack of evidence that he absconded. The applicant failed to charge the third respondent with abscondment or provide a reasonable explanation for his absence. The review test, as set out in Sidumo, is whether the commissioner’s decision was one that a reasonable decision maker could reach. The court held that the commissioner’s decision met this standard and that none of the grounds of review...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.