Sobudula v Pretorius NO and Others (PR74/18) [2021] ZALCPE 13 (9 December 2021)

Sobudula v Pretorius NO and Others (PR74/18) [2021] ZALCPE 13 (9 December 2021)

The arbitrator committed reviewable errors by considering an answering affidavit that was not properly before the Bargaining Council and by denying the applicant a fair hearing through deciding the condonation application on the papers rather than scheduling a hearing as required by the SSSBC rules. These procedural irregularities resulted in the applicant being denied a fair hearing and rendered the condonation ruling unreasonable. The Labour Court found that the arbitrator misconceived the dispute and failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements, justifying the setting aside of the condonation ruling and remitting the matter for determination de novo by a different arbitrator.

Citation
[2021] ZALCPE 13
Parties
Applicant: Phakamisa Gladson Sobudula; Respondent: William Richard Pretorius N.O; Respondent: Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council; Respondent: South African Police Services
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 December 2021
Case Number
PR74/18
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Condonation Ruling
Outcome
Condonation ruling reviewed and set aside; matter remitted for de novo determination by a different arbitrator; no order as to costs.
Judges
Z Lallie
Legal Topics
Condonation, Rescission Application, Unfair Dismissal, Right to Fair Hearing, Arbitration Review
Labour Law Civil Procedure Condonation Rescission Application Unfair Dismissal Right to Fair Hearing Arbitration Review

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phakamisa Gladson Sobudula

Applicant

William Richard Pretorius N.O

Respondent

Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council

Respondent

South African Police Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Condonation Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator erred by considering an answering affidavit not properly before the Bargaining Council.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was denied the right to a fair hearing by the arbitrator deciding the condonation application on the papers instead of scheduling a hearing.
  3. 3 Whether the errors committed by the arbitrator rendered the condonation ruling unreasonable and subject to review.

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitrator committed reviewable errors by considering an answering affidavit that was not properly before the Bargaining Council and by denying the applicant a fair hearing through deciding the condonation application on the papers rather than scheduling a hearing as required by the SSSBC rules. These procedural irregularities resulted in the applicant being denied a fair hearing and rendered the condonation ruling unreasonable. The Labour Court found that the arbitrator misconceived the dispute and failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements, justifying the setting aside of the condonation ruling and remitting the matter for determination de novo by a different arbitrator.

Court Disposition

Condonation ruling reviewed and set aside; matter remitted for de novo determination by a different arbitrator; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The condonation ruling issued by the second respondent under case number PSSS191-17/18 and dated 5 March 2018 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The matter is remitted to the second respondent for the condonation application to be determined de novo by an arbitrator other than the first respondent.