Vincent v Gunase and Another (JR1740/2010) [2014] ZALCJHB 303 (6 August 2014)

Vincent v Gunase and Another (JR1740/2010) [2014] ZALCJHB 303 (6 August 2014)

The court found that the Commissioner misdirected herself by admitting and relying on hearsay evidence, specifically the email from Mr Rose, when the witness was available to testify. This admission was prejudicial to the applicant and constituted a fatal irregularity in the arbitration proceedings. The applicant's viva voce evidence was not contradicted by any evidence from the respondent, and her version should have prevailed. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the applicant was an employee at the material time and had been unfairly dismissed. The Commissioner’s award was unreasonable and could not stand. Accordingly, the award was reviewed and...

Citation
[2014] ZALCJHB 303
Parties
Applicant: Adele Vincent; Respondent: Kaushila Gunase; Respondent: Worldwide Environmental Solutions (Pty) Ltd
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 August 2014
Case Number
JR1740/2010
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award
Outcome
The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside. The applicant is found to have been an employee and unfairly dismissed. The matter is remitted to the CCMA for determination of relief or compensation.
Judges
Cele
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Employee Status, Admission of Hearsay Evidence, Review of Arbitration Award
Labour Law Civil Procedure Unfair Dismissal Employee Status Admission of Hearsay Evidence Review of Arbitration Award

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adele Vincent

Applicant

Kaushila Gunase

Respondent

Worldwide Environmental Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was an employee of the second respondent at the material time.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was unfairly dismissed by the second respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the Commissioner misdirected herself by admitting and relying on hearsay evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Commissioner misdirected herself by admitting and relying on hearsay evidence, specifically the email from Mr Rose, when the witness was available to testify. This admission was prejudicial to the applicant and constituted a fatal irregularity in the arbitration proceedings. The applicant's viva voce evidence was not contradicted by any evidence from the respondent, and her version should have prevailed. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the applicant was an employee at the material time and had been unfairly dismissed. The Commissioner’s award was unreasonable and could not stand. Accordingly, the award was reviewed and...

Court Disposition

The arbitration award is reviewed and set aside. The applicant is found to have been an employee and unfairly dismissed. The matter is remitted to the CCMA for determination of relief or compensation.

Orders

  • The arbitration award dated 1 June 2010 issued by the first respondent is reviewed and set aside.
  • It is found that the applicant was an employee of the second respondent and was dismissed unfairly (procedurally and substantively) by it.