Gatusa o.b.o. Nakedi and Others v Sibukhali Corp CC (JS1060/02) [2003] ZALC 139 (5 February 2003)

Gatusa o.b.o. Nakedi and Others v Sibukhali Corp CC (JS1060/02) [2003] ZALC 139 (5 February 2003)

The court found that the applicants were dismissed for participating in a protected strike. As the respondent was absent and did not present any evidence, it failed to discharge the onus of proving that the dismissals were fair. Consequently, the dismissals were held to be both procedurally and substantively unfair....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] ZALC 139
Parties
Applicant: Gatusa obo M Nakedi and 5 Others; Respondent: Sibukhali Corps CC
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Case Number
JS1060/02
Procedural Posture
Labour Unfair Dismissal / Trial
Outcome
The dismissals of the six applicants were declared procedurally and substantively unfair. Compensation was awarded.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Protected Strike, Compensation for Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Protected Strike Compensation for Unfair Dismissal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gatusa obo M Nakedi and 5 Others

Applicant

Sibukhali Corps CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Labour Unfair Dismissal / Trial

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the six applicants for participating in a protected strike was procedurally and substantively fair.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent discharged the onus of proving the fairness of the dismissals.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were dismissed for participating in a protected strike. As the respondent was absent and did not present any evidence, it failed to discharge the onus of proving that the dismissals were fair. Consequently, the dismissals were held to be both procedurally and substantively unfair. The applicants were entitled to compensation equivalent to seven months' remuneration at the rate applicable at the time of their dismissal.

Court Disposition

The dismissals of the six applicants were declared procedurally and substantively unfair. Compensation was awarded.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the six applicants compensation equal to seven months' remuneration at the rate applicable to them at the time of their dismissal.