Fleming v Ngwenya N.O and Others (J2381/98) [1999] ZALC 159 (28 October 1999)

Fleming v Ngwenya N.O and Others (J2381/98) [1999] ZALC 159 (28 October 1999)

The court found that the first respondent's award was unjustifiable on the facts and law. The evidence showed that the applicant provided training and counselling to the second respondent during her probationary period, and the first respondent did not reject this evidence. The compensation awarded was excessive given the short duration of employment and the probationary status of the second respondent. The first respondent failed to properly exercise discretion and did not consider all relevant facts, including the lack of desire for reinstatement. The award was therefore reviewed and set aside, and costs were awarded to the applicant.

Citation
[1999] ZALC 159
Parties
Applicant: Fleming, Martin Asset Management; Respondent: Ngwenya, N.O; Respondent: Leisegang, Jeanette; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 October 1999
Case Number
J2381/98
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review succeeded; arbitration award set aside; costs awarded to applicant.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Probationary Dismissal, Compensation Award, Poor Performance, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Probationary Dismissal Compensation Award Poor Performance 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fleming, Martin Asset Management

Applicant

Ngwenya, N.O

Respondent

Leisegang, Jeanette

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent's arbitration award was justified on the facts and law.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided adequate training, guidance, and counselling to the second respondent during probation.
  3. 3 Whether the compensation awarded to the second respondent was appropriate given her probationary status and the facts.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent's award was unjustifiable on the facts and law. The evidence showed that the applicant provided training and counselling to the second respondent during her probationary period, and the first respondent did not reject this evidence. The compensation awarded was excessive given the short duration of employment and the probationary status of the second respondent. The first respondent failed to properly exercise discretion and did not consider all relevant facts, including the lack of desire for reinstatement. The award was therefore reviewed and set aside, and costs were awarded to the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application for review succeeded; arbitration award set aside; costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • The award of the first respondent is reviewed and set aside.
  • The second respondent is to pay the applicant's costs in this matter.