Leotlela v CCMA Gauteng and Others (J3211/2011) [2014] ZALCJHB 205 (11 June 2014)

Leotlela v CCMA Gauteng and Others (J3211/2011) [2014] ZALCJHB 205 (11 June 2014)

The court found that the applicant failed to articulate any proper grounds for review in her founding affidavit and did not address the key issue of whether there was a just cause for the transfer of funds. The Commissioner thoroughly considered the evidence, including the testimony of a police captain who established that the purported sale agreement was a forgery. The Commissioner’s conclusion that the applicant committed misconduct and that her dismissal was justified was reasonable and fell within the range of decisions a reasonable decision maker could reach. The principles governing reviewability require not only procedural irregularity but also an unreasonable result, which was not...

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 205
Parties
Applicant: Sesinyana Precious Leotlela; Respondent: CCMA Gauteng; Respondent: Commissioner Daniel Matjie; Respondent: Capitec Bank
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 June 2014
Case Number
J3211/2011
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Snider
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Misconduct, Reasonableness Test, Gross Irregularity, Dismissal
Labour Law Review of Arbitration Award Misconduct Reasonableness Test Gross Irregularity Dismissal

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sesinyana Precious Leotlela

Applicant

CCMA Gauteng

Respondent

Commissioner Daniel Matjie

Respondent

Capitec Bank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award by the Second Respondent was reviewable under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioner acted unreasonably in finding the applicant guilty of misconduct and upholding her dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence regarding the alleged loan and the sale of land was properly assessed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to articulate any proper grounds for review in her founding affidavit and did not address the key issue of whether there was a just cause for the transfer of funds. The Commissioner thoroughly considered the evidence, including the testimony of a police captain who established that the purported sale agreement was a forgery. The Commissioner’s conclusion that the applicant committed misconduct and that her dismissal was justified was reasonable and fell within the range of decisions a reasonable decision maker could reach. The principles governing reviewability require not only procedural irregularity but also an unreasonable result, which was not...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.