Mkhaba v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR3062/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 434 (11 December 2015)

Mkhaba v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR3062/12) [2015] ZALCJHB 434 (11 December 2015)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any error in the arbitrator's preference for the evidence of the enquiry chairpersons over other employer witnesses. The judgment clarified that the evidence of Mr Rasilingwani and the investigator was not disregarded but was found not to support a lesser...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] ZALCJHB 434
Parties
Applicant: Khululiwe Mkhaba; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Motlatsi Phala (N.O.); Respondent: Eskom Holdings SOC Limited
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 December 2015
Case Number
JR3062/12
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Review Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
R Lagrange
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Review of Arbitration Award, Sanction Appropriateness
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Review of Arbitration Award Sanction Appropriateness

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khululiwe Mkhaba

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Motlatsi Phala (N.O.)

Respondent

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Review Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court erred in finding the evidence of certain employer witnesses irrelevant to the appropriateness of the applicant's dismissal.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's preference for the evidence of the enquiry chairpersons was justified.
  3. 3 Whether another court would reach a different conclusion on the appropriateness of the sanction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any error in the arbitrator's preference for the evidence of the enquiry chairpersons over other employer witnesses. The judgment clarified that the evidence of Mr Rasilingwani and the investigator was not disregarded but was found not to support a lesser sanction when considered in context. The applicant did not file submissions timeously, nor did she do so after being reminded. The court concluded that there is no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion on the issues raised, and therefore dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • No order is made as to costs.