Matsekoleng v Nkadimeng and Others (JR853/04) [2006] ZALC 125 (18 October 2006)

Matsekoleng v Nkadimeng and Others (JR853/04) [2006] ZALC 125 (18 October 2006)

The court found that the commissioner properly considered the evidence and applied the relevant legal principles. The applicant failed to prove that the milk was not company property or that he had obtained authorisation to consume it. The disciplinary process was found to be procedurally fair, and there was no evidence of misconduct, gross irregularity, or excess of powers by the commissioner. The review grounds raised by the applicant were insufficient, as they amounted to issues appropriate for appeal rather than review. The award was not irrational and was justifiable on the reasons given. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed.

Citation
[2006] ZALC 125
Parties
Applicant: Supudu Reuben Matsekoleng; Respondent: Commissioner T.L. Nkadimeng; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 October 2006
Case Number
JR853/04
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for review dismissed with costs.
Judges
Cele
Legal Topics
Review of Arbitration Award, Misconduct, Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Review of Arbitration Award Misconduct Dismissal Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Supudu Reuben Matsekoleng

Applicant

Commissioner T.L. Nkadimeng

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award issued by the first respondent should be reviewed and set aside under section 145 of the Labour Relations Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's dismissal was substantively and procedurally fair.
  3. 3 Whether the commissioner committed misconduct, gross irregularity, or exceeded his powers.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commissioner properly considered the evidence and applied the relevant legal principles. The applicant failed to prove that the milk was not company property or that he had obtained authorisation to consume it. The disciplinary process was found to be procedurally fair, and there was no evidence of misconduct, gross irregularity, or excess of powers by the commissioner. The review grounds raised by the applicant were insufficient, as they amounted to issues appropriate for appeal rather than review. The award was not irrational and was justifiable on the reasons given. Accordingly, the application for review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for review of the arbitration award issued by the first respondent on 9 February 2004 is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.