Exxaro Coal (Pty) Ltd v Chipana and Others (JA161/17) [2019] ZALAC 52; [2019] 10 BLLR 991 (LAC); (2019) 40 ILJ 2485 (LAC) (27 June 2019)

Exxaro Coal (Pty) Ltd v Chipana and Others (JA161/17) [2019] ZALAC 52; [2019] 10 BLLR 991 (LAC); (2019) 40 ILJ 2485 (LAC) (27 June 2019)

The commissioner committed a gross irregularity by misapplying the law on hearsay evidence, excluding it solely due to lack of consent and failing to consider whether its admission was required in the interests of justice under section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act. The commissioner’s passive approach and late ruling on admissibility deprived both parties of a fair opportunity to present their cases and to know the evidentiary ambit they faced. The Labour Court erred in failing to interfere with the award, as the commissioner’s error was material and impacted the outcome. The unfairness caused by the late ruling could not be cured by the Labour Court or on appeal. The appropriate...

Citation
[2019] ZALAC 52
Parties
Appellant: Exxaro Coal (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Gabriel Chipana; Respondent: Donald Nkadimeng N.O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 June 2019
Case Number
JA161/17
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment Dismissing Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Labour Court’s order set aside; arbitration award reviewed and set aside; matter remitted to CCMA for hearing de novo before a different commissioner; no order as to costs.
Judges
Coppin, Murphy, Savage
Legal Topics
Hearsay Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Unfair Dismissal, Arbitration Award Review, Labour Relations Act, Law of Evidence Amendment Act
Labour Law Civil Procedure Hearsay Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Unfair Dismissal Arbitration Award Review Labour Relations Act Law of Evidence Amendment Act

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Exxaro Coal (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Gabriel Chipana

Respondent

Donald Nkadimeng N.O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Labour Court Judgment Dismissing Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner erred in excluding hearsay evidence without considering the interests of justice under section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act.
  2. 2 Whether the timing of the ruling on admissibility of hearsay evidence rendered the arbitration proceedings unfair.
  3. 3 Whether the Labour Court erred in failing to interfere with the commissioner’s award despite the misapplication of the law on hearsay evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The commissioner committed a gross irregularity by misapplying the law on hearsay evidence, excluding it solely due to lack of consent and failing to consider whether its admission was required in the interests of justice under section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act. The commissioner’s passive approach and late ruling on admissibility deprived both parties of a fair opportunity to present their cases and to know the evidentiary ambit they faced. The Labour Court erred in failing to interfere with the award, as the commissioner’s error was material and impacted the outcome. The unfairness caused by the late ruling could not be cured by the Labour Court or on appeal. The appropriate...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Labour Court’s order set aside; arbitration award reviewed and set aside; matter remitted to CCMA for hearing de novo before a different commissioner; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the Labour Court dismissing the review is set aside and replaced with: (1) The award is reviewed and set aside; (2) The matter is referred back to the CCMA for a hearing de novo before a different commissioner; (3) There is no costs order.