Mankwe v Nowosenetz and Others (JR 483/06) [2009] ZALC 207 (16 September 2009)

Mankwe v Nowosenetz and Others (JR 483/06) [2009] ZALC 207 (16 September 2009)

The court found that the commissioner was confronted with conflicting factual versions and was required to make a credibility finding. The commissioner preferred the employer’s evidence, which was corroborated, over the applicant’s substantially uncorroborated evidence. The award was found to be rational and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] ZALC 207
Parties
Applicant: Mothibe A Mankwe; Respondent: Commissioner Nowosenetz; Respondent: CCMA Pretoria; Respondent: Clicks Stores
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Case Number
JR 483/06
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs.
Judges
Pillay D
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Sidumo Test, Credibility Assessment, Unfair Dismissal
Labour Law Review of Arbitration Award Sidumo Test Credibility Assessment Unfair Dismissal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mothibe A Mankwe

Applicant

Commissioner Nowosenetz

Respondent

CCMA Pretoria

Respondent

Clicks Stores

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award issued by the first respondent commissioner is reviewable under the Sidumo test.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner’s credibility findings and preference for the employer’s evidence were reasonable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner was confronted with conflicting factual versions and was required to make a credibility finding. The commissioner preferred the employer’s evidence, which was corroborated, over the applicant’s substantially uncorroborated evidence. The award was found to be rational and reasonable, satisfying the Sidumo test. Therefore, the application for review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.