Leboho v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR365/06) [2008] ZALCJHB 57 (27 March 2008)

Leboho v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR365/06) [2008] ZALCJHB 57 (27 March 2008)

The court found that the commissioner acted within his discretion in admitting hearsay evidence, as the applicant had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the disciplinary hearing and the witness was unavailable for the arbitration due to having left the country. The withdrawal of criminal charges was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] ZALCJHB 57
Parties
Applicant: Patrick Leboho; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Sipho Radebe; Respondent: South African Revenue Services
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 March 2008
Case Number
JR365/06
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Labour Court Review of CCMA Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs; the applicant and his union are jointly and severally liable for costs.
Judges
A Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Admission of Hearsay Evidence, Review of Arbitration Award, Reasonable Decision Maker Test
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Admission of Hearsay Evidence Review of Arbitration Award Reasonable Decision Maker Test

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Leboho

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Sipho Radebe

Respondent

South African Revenue Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Labour Court Review of CCMA Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner erred in admitting hearsay evidence at the arbitration.
  2. 2 Whether the withdrawal of criminal charges against the applicant should have affected the disciplinary and arbitration proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration award upholding the applicant's dismissal was reasonable and reviewable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner acted within his discretion in admitting hearsay evidence, as the applicant had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the disciplinary hearing and the witness was unavailable for the arbitration due to having left the country. The withdrawal of criminal charges was irrelevant to the disciplinary and arbitration proceedings, as these are distinct processes. Applying the reasonable decision-maker test from Sidumo, the court held that the commissioner's decision to uphold the applicant's dismissal was reasonable and not reviewable. The application for review was dismissed with costs, and the applicant's union was held jointly and severally...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs; the applicant and his union are jointly and severally liable for costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.
  • The United Peoples Union of South Africa, as representative of the applicant, is jointly and severally liable with the applicant for the costs of this application, the one paying the other to be absolved.