Mbhele v South African Bank Note Company (Pty) Ltd (JS 844/11) [2013] ZALCJHB 29; (2013) 34 ILJ 2889 (LC) (15 March 2013)

Mbhele v South African Bank Note Company (Pty) Ltd (JS 844/11) [2013] ZALCJHB 29; (2013) 34 ILJ 2889 (LC) (15 March 2013)

The court held that the relevance of the impugned averments is decisive. Even if the respondent is precluded from relying on certain factual material to establish misconduct, such material may be relevant to the determination of an appropriate sanction, particularly in cases involving trust and confidence in senior executives. The court found that it was unnecessary to decide on the need for condonation or whether the respondent is bound by the disciplinary chairperson's findings. The application to strike out was dismissed as the paragraphs in question may be relevant to sanction, and costs were awarded to the respondent, including the costs of two counsel.

Citation
[2013] ZALCJHB 29
Parties
Applicant: Mbhele Musawenkosi; Respondent: South African Bank Note Company (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 March 2013
Case Number
JS 844/11
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Strike Out Averments; Application for Condonation; Rule 30 a Application
Outcome
Application to strike out dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Strike Out Application, Condonation, Relevance of Evidence, Disciplinary Proceedings, Sanction for Misconduct
Labour Law Civil Procedure Strike Out Application Condonation Relevance of Evidence Disciplinary Proceedings Sanction for Misconduct

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mbhele Musawenkosi

Applicant

South African Bank Note Company (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Strike Out Averments; Application for Condonation; Rule 30 a Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether averments outside the scope of the disciplinary chairperson's findings are relevant to the pending trial.
  2. 2 Whether condonation for the late filing of the strike out application should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is bound by the parameters of the chairperson's recommendation when establishing misconduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the relevance of the impugned averments is decisive. Even if the respondent is precluded from relying on certain factual material to establish misconduct, such material may be relevant to the determination of an appropriate sanction, particularly in cases involving trust and confidence in senior executives. The court found that it was unnecessary to decide on the need for condonation or whether the respondent is bound by the disciplinary chairperson's findings. The application to strike out was dismissed as the paragraphs in question may be relevant to sanction, and costs were awarded to the respondent, including the costs of two counsel.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application to strike out is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the engagement of two counsel.