Kgomo v Sello N.O and Others (JR1807/20) [2024] ZALCJHB 461 (21 November 2024)

Kgomo v Sello N.O and Others (JR1807/20) [2024] ZALCJHB 461 (21 November 2024)

The commissioner’s finding that Mr Fay was not authorised to approve the applicant’s outside business interests was reasonable, as the evidence showed Fay was not the applicant’s line manager and only line management could approve such declarations under the Outside Business Interest policy. The applicant failed to submit a written declaration, obtain explicit approval, and update her declaration as required. The policies breached were central to the bank’s risk management and ethical standards, and the applicant, as a senior employee with long service and training, was expected to comply. The commissioner’s award, dismissing the applicant’s review, falls within a range of reasonable...

Citation
[2024] ZALCJHB 461
Parties
Applicant: Evelyn Baile Kgomo; Respondent: Commissioner Sello NO; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Standard Bank SA
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 November 2024
Case Number
JR1807/20
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
RN Daniels
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Conflict of Interest, Outside Business Interest Policy, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Conflict of Interest Outside Business Interest Policy Review of Arbitration Award

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evelyn Baile Kgomo

Applicant

Commissioner Sello NO

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Standard Bank SA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner unreasonably found that Mr Fay lacked authority to approve the applicant's outside business interests.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's dismissal for breach of the Outside Business Interest and Conflict of Interest policies was substantively fair.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award falls within a range of reasonable outcomes.

Ratio Decidendi

The commissioner’s finding that Mr Fay was not authorised to approve the applicant’s outside business interests was reasonable, as the evidence showed Fay was not the applicant’s line manager and only line management could approve such declarations under the Outside Business Interest policy. The applicant failed to submit a written declaration, obtain explicit approval, and update her declaration as required. The policies breached were central to the bank’s risk management and ethical standards, and the applicant, as a senior employee with long service and training, was expected to comply. The commissioner’s award, dismissing the applicant’s review, falls within a range of reasonable...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the arbitration award is dismissed.