Dell v Seton (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR164/06) [2008] ZALC 98; [2009] 2 BLLR 122 (LC) (23 July 2008)

Dell v Seton (Pty) Ltd and Others (JR164/06) [2008] ZALC 98; [2009] 2 BLLR 122 (LC) (23 July 2008)

The court found that although the review application was filed two days late, the delay was minimal and condonation was granted. The applicant’s contention that the disciplinary process was unfair due to the lack of an appeal was rejected; the court held that deviation from the internal disciplinary code did not, in the circumstances, deprive the applicant of a fair hearing. The disciplinary enquiry was chaired by an independent person and the explanation for deviation was reasonable. The commissioner’s award was found to be reasonable and in line with the Sidumo test, as the evidence supported the finding that the applicant breached his fiduciary duty and manipulated his remuneration....

Citation
[2008] ZALC 98
Parties
Applicant: Ralph Dennis Dell; Respondent: Seton (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: Sheen N.O.
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 July 2008
Case Number
JR164/06
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application to review and set aside the arbitration award is dismissed.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Condonation for Late Filing, Disciplinary Code, Fiduciary Duty
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Condonation for Late Filing Disciplinary Code Fiduciary Duty

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ralph Dennis Dell

Applicant

Seton (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

CCMA

Respondent

Sheen N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's review application should be dismissed for being filed two days late without condonation.
  2. 2 Whether the failure to allow the applicant an appeal hearing rendered the disciplinary procedure unfair.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner’s award was unreasonable and reviewable under the Sidumo test.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the review application was filed two days late, the delay was minimal and condonation was granted. The applicant’s contention that the disciplinary process was unfair due to the lack of an appeal was rejected; the court held that deviation from the internal disciplinary code did not, in the circumstances, deprive the applicant of a fair hearing. The disciplinary enquiry was chaired by an independent person and the explanation for deviation was reasonable. The commissioner’s award was found to be reasonable and in line with the Sidumo test, as the evidence supported the finding that the applicant breached his fiduciary duty and manipulated his remuneration....

Court Disposition

Application to review and set aside the arbitration award is dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the arbitration award under case number GJAB 16727/05 and dated 7 December 2005 is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.