Transnet Port Terminals v Sonqishe and Others (D765/2022) [2024] ZALCD 27 (20 August 2024)

Transnet Port Terminals v Sonqishe and Others (D765/2022) [2024] ZALCD 27 (20 August 2024)

The court found that the third respondent correctly applied section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, 1988 in excluding hearsay evidence attributed to Dr Umar, and that the timing of the exclusion did not deprive the applicant of a fair hearing. The applicant failed to establish fraudulent intent by the first respondent, as her consistent version that she believed the medical practitioner was legitimate was neither contradicted nor inherently improbable. The essential element of fraud—intent to deceive—was not proven. Even if the hearsay evidence had been admitted or direct evidence obtained, it would not have altered the outcome. The third respondent's finding that the applicant...

Citation
[2024] ZALCD 27
Parties
Applicant: Transnet Port Terminals (A Division of Transnet SOC Ltd); Respondent: Yonela Sonqishe; Respondent: Transnet Bargaining Council; Respondent: Bess Pillemer N.O.
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 August 2024
Case Number
D765/2022
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed. Costs awarded to the first respondent.
Judges
Allen-Yaman
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence, Fraudulent Medical Certificates, Retrospective Reinstatement
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence Fraudulent Medical Certificates Retrospective Reinstatement

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

Transnet Port Terminals (A Division of Transnet SOC Ltd)

Applicant

Yonela Sonqishe

Respondent

Transnet Bargaining Council

Respondent

Bess Pillemer N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third respondent correctly excluded hearsay evidence attributed to Dr Umar.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established fraudulent intent by the first respondent in submitting medical certificates.
  3. 3 Whether the timing of the exclusion of hearsay evidence deprived the applicant of a fair hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the third respondent correctly applied section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, 1988 in excluding hearsay evidence attributed to Dr Umar, and that the timing of the exclusion did not deprive the applicant of a fair hearing. The applicant failed to establish fraudulent intent by the first respondent, as her consistent version that she believed the medical practitioner was legitimate was neither contradicted nor inherently improbable. The essential element of fraud—intent to deceive—was not proven. Even if the hearsay evidence had been admitted or direct evidence obtained, it would not have altered the outcome. The third respondent's finding that the applicant...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Costs awarded to the first respondent.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the first respondent's costs.