Ramabulana v CCMA and Others (JR1190/16) [2019] ZALCJHB 232 (3 September 2019)

Ramabulana v CCMA and Others (JR1190/16) [2019] ZALCJHB 232 (3 September 2019)

The court found that the arbitrator did not overstep his role or deny the applicant a fair hearing. The arbitrator respected the parties' representatives and allowed the applicant's representative to put questions despite interventions. The procedural complaints raised by the applicant were either unfounded or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] ZALCJHB 232
Parties
Applicant: Avhapfani Osley Ramabulana; Respondent: CCMA; Respondent: L Nowesenetz N.O.; Respondent: University of South Africa
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 September 2019
Case Number
JR1190/16
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Van Niekerk
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Arbitration Review, Procedural Fairness, Substantive Fairness
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Arbitration Review Procedural Fairness Substantive Fairness

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Avhapfani Osley Ramabulana

Applicant

CCMA

Respondent

L Nowesenetz N.O.

Respondent

University of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator committed procedural irregularities that denied the applicant a fair hearing.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's assessment of the evidence was unreasonable and led to an unfair outcome.
  3. 3 Whether the dismissal of the applicant was substantively and procedurally fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitrator did not overstep his role or deny the applicant a fair hearing. The arbitrator respected the parties' representatives and allowed the applicant's representative to put questions despite interventions. The procedural complaints raised by the applicant were either unfounded or correctly categorized as substantive rather than procedural. Regarding the substantive fairness of the dismissal, the arbitrator made reasonable credibility findings and assessed the probabilities of the evidence, particularly concerning the hiring of a more expensive vehicle, unauthorized deviation from the business trip, and misrepresentation regarding the relocation benefit. The...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party is to bear its own costs.