Mabunda v Eskom Holdings Ltd and Others (JR2442/2014) [2015] ZALCJHB 371 (27 October 2015)

Mabunda v Eskom Holdings Ltd and Others (JR2442/2014) [2015] ZALCJHB 371 (27 October 2015)

The court held that the applicant failed to establish any reviewable irregularity or that the commissioner’s decision was unreasonable. The commissioner confined himself to the relevant charge and correctly found that the applicant had acted irregularly by altering the shortlist to include her sister, without disclosing the relationship, in breach of company policy and ethical standards. The applicant’s arguments amounted to contesting factual findings and inferences, which do not meet the threshold for review under section 145. The evidence supported the commissioner’s conclusion that the dismissal was substantively fair, and the application was dismissed.

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 371
Parties
Applicant: Portia Mabunda; Respondent: Eskom Holdings Ltd; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Commissioner JS Maake N.O
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 October 2015
Case Number
JR2442/2014
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Unopposed Review Application
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Conflict of Interest, Recruitment and Selection, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Conflict of Interest Recruitment and Selection 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Portia Mabunda

Applicant

Eskom Holdings Ltd

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Commissioner JS Maake N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Unopposed Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner committed a reviewable irregularity in the arbitration award.
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal of the applicant was substantively fair.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner misconceived the nature of the enquiry or arrived at an unreasonable result.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant failed to establish any reviewable irregularity or that the commissioner’s decision was unreasonable. The commissioner confined himself to the relevant charge and correctly found that the applicant had acted irregularly by altering the shortlist to include her sister, without disclosing the relationship, in breach of company policy and ethical standards. The applicant’s arguments amounted to contesting factual findings and inferences, which do not meet the threshold for review under section 145. The evidence supported the commissioner’s conclusion that the dismissal was substantively fair, and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.