Moadira v Van Eck and Others (JR1875/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 52 (12 January 2017)

Moadira v Van Eck and Others (JR1875/14) [2017] ZALCJHB 52 (12 January 2017)

The court found that the Commissioner had reached unreasonable decisions on charges 2, 3, 4, 5, and 13, as the applicant could not be held strictly liable for failures in procurement processes without evidence of actual or negligent misconduct. The applicant was entitled to rely on the recommendations of the bid committees unless there was something suspicious in the documentation, which was not proven. The applicant’s intervention in SCM processes was justified by staff deficiencies. However, the applicant was properly found guilty on charges 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11, relating to his failure to execute council resolutions, improper disciplinary actions, and prohibiting staff training, which...

Citation
[2017] ZALCJHB 52
Parties
Applicant: Moadira Matshedisho Moses; Respondent: Van Eck, Bernard N. O.; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: City of Matlosana Local Municipality
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 January 2017
Case Number
JR1875/14
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application partly successful; arbitration award reviewed and corrected, but dismissal upheld as substantively fair.
Judges
Cele
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Municipal Manager Discipline, Arbitration Review, Substantive Fairness, Municipal Systems Act, Disciplinary Procedure
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Municipal Manager Discipline Arbitration Review Substantive Fairness Municipal Systems Act Disciplinary Procedure

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 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moadira Matshedisho Moses

Applicant

Van Eck, Bernard N. O.

Respondent

Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

City of Matlosana Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's dismissal was substantively fair given the charges on which he was found guilty.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration award was reasonable and supported by the evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant could be held strictly liable for failures in municipal procurement processes.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Commissioner had reached unreasonable decisions on charges 2, 3, 4, 5, and 13, as the applicant could not be held strictly liable for failures in procurement processes without evidence of actual or negligent misconduct. The applicant was entitled to rely on the recommendations of the bid committees unless there was something suspicious in the documentation, which was not proven. The applicant’s intervention in SCM processes was justified by staff deficiencies. However, the applicant was properly found guilty on charges 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11, relating to his failure to execute council resolutions, improper disciplinary actions, and prohibiting staff training, which...

Court Disposition

Application partly successful; arbitration award reviewed and corrected, but dismissal upheld as substantively fair.

Orders

  • The arbitration award issued by the first respondent is reviewed and corrected to read that the applicant is found guilty of charges 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11.
  • The dismissal of the applicant by the third respondent is substantively fair.