Shoprite Checkers v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR2259/11) [2014] ZALCJHB 36 (13 February 2014)

Shoprite Checkers v Commission for Conciliation Mediation And Arbitration and Others (JR2259/11) [2014] ZALCJHB 36 (13 February 2014)

The court found that the applicant relied almost exclusively on hearsay evidence in the form of affidavits and video recordings by Aphane, without calling her or other key witnesses to testify at the arbitration. The applicant failed to provide reasonable explanations for not securing the attendance of these witnesses and did not corroborate the hearsay evidence with direct testimony or original documents. The affidavits contained contradictions and lacked probative value, and their admission would have caused significant prejudice to Mofomme, who was unable to challenge the evidence through cross-examination. Applying the Sidumo test and the requirements of section 3(1) of the Law of...

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 36
Parties
Applicant: Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration; Respondent: Lerato Sikwane N.O.; Respondent: Retail and Allied Workers Union; Respondent: Lizzy Mofomme
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 February 2014
Case Number
JR2259/11
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Review application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Gaibie
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence, Review of Arbitration Award, Onus of Proof in Dismissal, Sidumo Test, Procedural Fairness
Labour Law Civil Procedure Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence Review of Arbitration Award Onus of Proof in Dismissal Sidumo Test Procedural Fairness

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration

Respondent

Lerato Sikwane N.O.

Respondent

Retail and Allied Workers Union

Respondent

Lizzy Mofomme

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commissioner correctly excluded hearsay evidence in the arbitration proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant discharged its onus to prove substantive fairness of the dismissal.
  3. 3 Whether the review application meets the Sidumo test for review of arbitration awards.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant relied almost exclusively on hearsay evidence in the form of affidavits and video recordings by Aphane, without calling her or other key witnesses to testify at the arbitration. The applicant failed to provide reasonable explanations for not securing the attendance of these witnesses and did not corroborate the hearsay evidence with direct testimony or original documents. The affidavits contained contradictions and lacked probative value, and their admission would have caused significant prejudice to Mofomme, who was unable to challenge the evidence through cross-examination. Applying the Sidumo test and the requirements of section 3(1) of the Law of...

Court Disposition

Review application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The review application is dismissed with costs.