Mapolisa v Williams NO and Others (JR1011/12) [2014] ZALCJHB 399 (15 October 2014)

Mapolisa v Williams NO and Others (JR1011/12) [2014] ZALCJHB 399 (15 October 2014)

The court found that the applicant failed to substantiate her grounds of review, as there was no evidence that the third respondent's representative improperly adduced evidence or posed leading questions prejudicial to the applicant. The applicant's representative did not object to the admission of hearsay evidence at the relevant time, and the commissioner exercised his discretion to admit Constable Maleka's statement as corroboration of Mr Hlongwane's testimony. Even if the hearsay evidence were excluded, the probabilities based on Mr Hlongwane's evidence alone were sufficient to establish the applicant's misconduct. The City of Johannesburg discharged its burden of proof on a balance...

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 399
Parties
Applicant: Mapolisa, N; Respondent: Williams, I N.O; Respondent: South African Local Government Bargaining Council; Respondent: City of Johannesburg
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 October 2014
Case Number
JR1011/12
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Hearing of Review Application
Outcome
Review application dismissed.
Judges
Ram
Legal Topics
Admission of Hearsay Evidence, Review of Arbitration Award, Misconduct, Burden of Proof
Labour Law Civil Procedure Admission of Hearsay Evidence Review of Arbitration Award Misconduct Burden of Proof

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mapolisa, N

Applicant

Williams, I N.O

Respondent

South African Local Government Bargaining Council

Respondent

City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Hearing of Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner committed a gross irregularity by allowing the representative of the third respondent to adduce evidence himself during examination in chief.
  2. 2 Whether the commissioner committed a gross irregularity by allowing leading questions and admitting new evidence prejudicial to the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner committed a gross irregularity by admitting hearsay evidence, specifically Constable Maleka's statement, without proper corroboration.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to substantiate her grounds of review, as there was no evidence that the third respondent's representative improperly adduced evidence or posed leading questions prejudicial to the applicant. The applicant's representative did not object to the admission of hearsay evidence at the relevant time, and the commissioner exercised his discretion to admit Constable Maleka's statement as corroboration of Mr Hlongwane's testimony. Even if the hearsay evidence were excluded, the probabilities based on Mr Hlongwane's evidence alone were sufficient to establish the applicant's misconduct. The City of Johannesburg discharged its burden of proof on a balance...

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed.

Orders

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