Steyn v Du Plessis and Others (C597/2021) [2023] ZALCJHB 223 (13 July 2023)

Steyn v Du Plessis and Others (C597/2021) [2023] ZALCJHB 223 (13 July 2023)

The court found that the delay in filing the review was primarily due to the applicant's legal representatives and not the applicant herself. The explanation for the delay was sufficient, and the prospects of success were compelling. On the merits, the evidence did not support the finding of dishonesty or misconduct against the applicant. The arbitration award was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. The only plausible finding was that the applicant was not guilty of the alleged misconduct, and reinstatement was appropriate. The matter was not opposed, and there was no evidence that reinstatement was impractical.

Citation
[2023] ZALCJHB 223
Parties
Applicant: Susanna Magdalena Steyn; Respondent: Commissioner D J Du Plessis; Respondent: South African Local Government Bargaining Council (Western Cape Division); Respondent: Kannaland Local Municipality
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 July 2023
Case Number
C597/2021
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review and Condonation
Outcome
Condonation granted; arbitration award reviewed and set aside; applicant reinstated with retrospective effect and back pay; no order as to costs.
Judges
Whyte
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Condonation, Arbitration Review, Reinstatement, Substantive Fairness
Labour Law Unfair Dismissal Condonation Arbitration Review Reinstatement Substantive 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susanna Magdalena Steyn

Applicant

Commissioner D J Du Plessis

Respondent

South African Local Government Bargaining Council (Western Cape Division)

Respondent

Kannaland Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review and Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the review application.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration award upholding the applicant's dismissal was reasonable and supported by the evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's dismissal was substantively unfair and warranted reinstatement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay in filing the review was primarily due to the applicant's legal representatives and not the applicant herself. The explanation for the delay was sufficient, and the prospects of success were compelling. On the merits, the evidence did not support the finding of dishonesty or misconduct against the applicant. The arbitration award was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. The only plausible finding was that the applicant was not guilty of the alleged misconduct, and reinstatement was appropriate. The matter was not opposed, and there was no evidence that reinstatement was impractical.

Court Disposition

Condonation granted; arbitration award reviewed and set aside; applicant reinstated with retrospective effect and back pay; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the applicant's review is granted.
  • The arbitration award dated 9 July 2021 under case reference WCP012012 is reviewed and set aside.