Kabe v Nedbank Ltd (JS633/13) [2018] ZALCJHB 173; (2018) 39 ILJ 1760 (LC) (8 May 2018)

Kabe v Nedbank Ltd (JS633/13) [2018] ZALCJHB 173; (2018) 39 ILJ 1760 (LC) (8 May 2018)

The applicant failed to produce credible evidence that her dismissal was for a prohibited reason under section 187(1)(d) or (h) of the Labour Relations Act. The grievances and tip-offs she lodged did not meet the definition of protected disclosures under the Protected Disclosures Act, as they were primarily personal grievances rather than reports of criminal or irregular conduct. The evidence showed that the respondent addressed her grievances and only dismissed her after a disciplinary process for poor performance and misconduct. The applicant withdrew her unfair labour practice referrals months before her dismissal, and there was no causal link between her protected activities and the...

Citation
[2018] ZALCJHB 173
Parties
Applicant: Nkgadimang Euginia Kabe; Respondent: Nedbank Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 May 2018
Case Number
JS633/13
Procedural Posture
Trial Judgment / Absolution From the Instance After Applicant's Case
Outcome
Absolution from the instance granted in favour of the respondent. Costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
GN Moshoana
Legal Topics
Automatically Unfair Dismissal, Protected Disclosure, Costs Award, Absolution From Instance, Section 187 Lra, Protected Disclosures Act
Labour Law Civil Procedure Automatically Unfair Dismissal Protected Disclosure Costs Award Absolution From Instance Section 187 Lra Protected Disclosures 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nkgadimang Euginia Kabe

Applicant

Nedbank Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Trial Judgment / Absolution From the Instance After Applicant's Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was subjected to an automatically unfair dismissal under section 187(1)(d) and (h) of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the grievances and tip-offs made by the applicant constituted protected disclosures under the Protected Disclosures Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant produced credible evidence that the real reason for her dismissal was a prohibited reason.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to produce credible evidence that her dismissal was for a prohibited reason under section 187(1)(d) or (h) of the Labour Relations Act. The grievances and tip-offs she lodged did not meet the definition of protected disclosures under the Protected Disclosures Act, as they were primarily personal grievances rather than reports of criminal or irregular conduct. The evidence showed that the respondent addressed her grievances and only dismissed her after a disciplinary process for poor performance and misconduct. The applicant withdrew her unfair labour practice referrals months before her dismissal, and there was no causal link between her protected activities and the...

Court Disposition

Absolution from the instance granted in favour of the respondent. Costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent is absolved from the instance.
  • The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs, including those reserved on 5 December 2014.