Khumalo v Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (D638/22) [2024] ZALCD 19 (17 July 2024)

Khumalo v Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council and Others (D638/22) [2024] ZALCD 19 (17 July 2024)

The Commissioner committed misconduct and a gross irregularity by treating the pre-arbitration minute as a stated case without agreement, refusing to allow evidence to be led despite material factual disputes, and depriving the applicant of a fair hearing. This approach was inconsistent with the principles of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZALCD 19
Parties
Applicant: Mali Thamsanqa Khumalo; Respondent: Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council; Respondent: Humphrey Ndaba N.O; Respondent: Commissioner of National South African Police Service; Respondent: Minister of Police
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 July 2024
Case Number
D638/22
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review and Condonation
Outcome
Review application succeeds; arbitration award set aside; matter remitted for fresh hearing before a different Commissioner; condonation granted for late filings; no order as to costs.
Judges
T Govender
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Condonation, Unfair Dismissal, Natural Justice, Stated Case Procedure
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Condonation Unfair Dismissal Natural Justice Stated Case Procedure

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Mali Thamsanqa Khumalo

Applicant

Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council

Respondent

Humphrey Ndaba N.O

Respondent

Commissioner of National South African Police Service

Respondent

Minister of Police

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review and Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commissioner committed misconduct or gross irregularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was deprived of a fair hearing by the refusal to allow evidence to be led.
  3. 3 Whether the pre-arbitration minute could be treated as a stated case without agreement between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioner committed misconduct and a gross irregularity by treating the pre-arbitration minute as a stated case without agreement, refusing to allow evidence to be led despite material factual disputes, and depriving the applicant of a fair hearing. This approach was inconsistent with the principles of natural justice and the requirements of section 138 of the Labour Relations Act. The applicant demonstrated good prospects of success on review, and the explanation for the delay, though not ideal, was not unreasonable. The interests of justice favoured granting condonation for both the applicant's late review application and the respondent's late answering affidavit. The arbitration...

Court Disposition

Review application succeeds; arbitration award set aside; matter remitted for fresh hearing before a different Commissioner; condonation granted for late filings; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicant's condonation application is granted.
  • The fourth respondent's condonation application is granted.