ABF Legend Logistics v Marrengula and Others (JR1173/19) [2025] ZALCJHB 401 (28 August 2025)

Key Facts

Issues

• The court found the second respondent's award of seven months' compensation unreasonable, as the first respondent obtained alternative employment in January 2018. The relief was adjusted to one month's compensation based on the absence of evidence about reduced earnings.
• The court evaluated if the second respondent's conclusion that the dismissal was fair could be reasonably justified. The Sidumo reasonableness test was applied, considering the lack of procedures followed and no valid reason provided for the dismissal.
• The court determined whether the second respondent correctly found that the first respondent was dismissed, which is critical for establishing the CCMA's jurisdiction under section 191 of the Act. The issue focused on the objective existence of a dismissal, not the arbitrator's subjective reasonableness.

Holdings

• The court finds the commissioner's award of seven months' compensation unreasonable, as the first respondent obtained alternative employment in January 2018, and adjusts it to one month's salary. The original award relied on unsupported evidence of unemployment and slim reemployment prospects.
• The court upholds the commissioner's finding that the first respondent was dismissed, as the applicant failed to rebut the evidence and Mr. Fouche was not called as a witness. The dismissal was accepted due to unchallenged testimony and lack of disciplinary action for absence.
• The court confirms the dismissal was both procedurally and substantively fair, as no procedures were followed and there was no valid reason given for the dismissal. The decision aligns with the Sidumo reasonableness test.

Remedies

• The court ordered the applicant to pay R9 381.64 to the first respondent as compensation, equivalent to one month's salary, replacing the original seven-month award. This adjustment was made based on evidence that the first respondent obtained alternative employment in January 2018.
• The court did not make any order regarding costs in this case, as stated in paragraph [2] of the judgment.

Monetary Damages

Legal Principles

• The Sidumo reasonableness test was applied to review the arbitrator's decision on the fairness of the dismissal, determining it was a reasonable outcome.
• The court applied the 'correctness' test to determine the existence of a dismissal as a jurisdictional fact for the CCMA, rather than the Wednesbury reasonableness test.
• The onus was on the first respondent to prove he was dismissed, which he failed to rebut in the absence of the employer's witness (Mr. Fouche) and contradictory evidence.
• The commissioner applied a balance of probabilities standard in the arbitration to assess the dismissal claim, which the court upheld as the correct approach.

Precedent Name

• Fidelity Cash Management Service v CCMA & others and National Union of Mineworkers v Rustenburg Platinum Mine
• SA Rugby Players Association v SA Rugby (Pty) Ltd and Others

Cited Statute

Judge Name

Passage Text

• [15] ... The first respondent's evidence regarding the events of 19 December 2017 was not rebutted by Mr. Fouche. ... The second respondent was also correct to find Mr. Coetzee's evidence irrelevant under circumstances where Mr. Coetzee was not even employed on 19 December 2017.
• [19] ... the appropriate relief ought to have been to award one month's compensation.
• [18] ... the second respondent's finding of the first respondent testifying that the chances are slim of getting a similar job in the industry and that he remains unemployed is not supported by the evidence and is in fact false. ... the second respondent's finding in respect of the amount of compensation awarded is unreasonable and is a decision that a reasonable decision-maker could not reach.