Evertrade v Kriel NO and Others (JR1054/07) [2008] ZALC 189 (8 February 2008)

Evertrade v Kriel NO and Others (JR1054/07) [2008] ZALC 189 (8 February 2008)

The court found, on the objective evidence and the probabilities, that the third respondent was dismissed by the applicant. The third respondent's immediate referral of the dispute to the CCMA and her testimony regarding the events of 16 February 2007 were consistent and credible. The applicant's subsequent correspondence failed to address the dismissal allegation and was not satisfactorily explained. The arbitrator's finding that a dismissal occurred was upheld, and the dismissal was found to be procedurally unfair. The review application was accordingly dismissed.

Citation
[2008] ZALC 189
Parties
Applicant: Evertrade; Respondent: A Kriel N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Kim Botes
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 February 2008
Case Number
JR1054/07
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed.
Judges
Nieuwoudt
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Jurisdictional Fact, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Jurisdictional Fact 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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evertrade

Applicant

A Kriel N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Kim Botes

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third respondent was dismissed by the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal, if established, was procedurally unfair.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator's finding on dismissal constituted a jurisdictional fact subject to review.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the objective evidence and the probabilities, that the third respondent was dismissed by the applicant. The third respondent's immediate referral of the dispute to the CCMA and her testimony regarding the events of 16 February 2007 were consistent and credible. The applicant's subsequent correspondence failed to address the dismissal allegation and was not satisfactorily explained. The arbitrator's finding that a dismissal occurred was upheld, and the dismissal was found to be procedurally unfair. The review application was accordingly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.