Mokoena and Another v Garden Art (Pty) Ltd and Another (JS373/06) [2007] ZALC 90; [2008] 5 BLLR 428 (LC); (2008) 29 ILJ 1196 (LC) (3 December 2007)

Mokoena and Another v Garden Art (Pty) Ltd and Another (JS373/06) [2007] ZALC 90; [2008] 5 BLLR 428 (LC); (2008) 29 ILJ 1196 (LC) (3 December 2007)

The court found that the first applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she was sexually harassed by the second respondent, as her evidence was inconsistent and unsupported by witnesses or contemporaneous reporting. The second applicant proved that the conduct of the second respondent on 21 November 2005 amounted to sexual harassment. However, the employer was only made aware of this incident on 22 November 2005 and took immediate steps by holding a grievance hearing, consulting all relevant parties, and issuing a written warning. No further incidents occurred after these steps. The court held that the employer took reasonably practicable steps to prevent further...

Citation
[2007] ZALC 90
Parties
Applicant: Suzan Mokoena; Applicant: Lerato Mokheti; Respondent: Garden Art (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Sam Mtumo Mohlabane
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 December 2007
Case Number
JS373/06
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Francis
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment, Employment Equity Act, Vicarious Liability, Workplace Discrimination, Code of Good Practice, Grievance Procedure
Labour Law Sexual Harassment Employment Equity Act Vicarious Liability Workplace Discrimination Code of Good Practice Grievance 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suzan Mokoena

Applicant

Lerato Mokheti

Applicant

Garden Art (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Sam Mtumo Mohlabane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct of the second respondent constituted sexual harassment under the Employment Equity Act and Code of Good Practice.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent, as employer, is vicariously liable for the alleged sexual harassment by its supervisor.
  3. 3 Whether the employer took all reasonable steps to prevent and eliminate sexual harassment in the workplace.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she was sexually harassed by the second respondent, as her evidence was inconsistent and unsupported by witnesses or contemporaneous reporting. The second applicant proved that the conduct of the second respondent on 21 November 2005 amounted to sexual harassment. However, the employer was only made aware of this incident on 22 November 2005 and took immediate steps by holding a grievance hearing, consulting all relevant parties, and issuing a written warning. No further incidents occurred after these steps. The court held that the employer took reasonably practicable steps to prevent further...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

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