| fst) | , |
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not reportable
Case Nox, 260-2022
In the matter between:
SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES Applicant
and
BRIGADIER BE BORMAN N.O. First Respondent
POPCRU obo GF MADELEY Second Respondent
Heard: 27 June 2025
Delivered: 14 July 2025
JUDGMENT
VENTER AJ
Introduction
[1] | In this unopposed application, the Applicant approached the court seeking an
order to review and set aside a decision made by the First Respondent in her
2
capacity as chairperson of a disciplinary hearing, in terms of section 158(1)(h) of
the Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 (the LRA).
Condonation
[2] The outcome of a disciplinary hearing was communicated to the Applicant on 5
April 2022 and the current application was launched on 1 June 2022.
[3] There is no specific statutory time frame prescribed for filing a review application
under section 158(1)(h) of the LRA. Such an application must, however, be
launched within a reasonable time. '
[4] The current application was launched some 8 weeks after the Applicant became
aware of the outcome of the disciplinaryshearing. The Applicant presented an
elaborate explanation of the steps taken from 5\April 2022 and the functionaries
that had to consider and recommend or approve the review application.
[5] The court is satisfied that the delay wasinot unreasonable and that the Applicant
provided a plausible explanation for the delay. The Respondents did not oppose
the application, and no opposing arguments were brought to the court’s attention.
The application for condonation is therefore granted.
Background facts
[6] The Second Respondent has been employed by the Applicant since 29 May
2022, and he holds the rank of a Warrant Officer at the Nayanga Police Station.
[7] _ The Second Respondent was arrested for theft on 8 January 2022 at Woolworths
Canal Walk shopping mall. His arrest followed after he walked past a pay point
with a trolley loaded with bags of goods. It was also alleged that the Second
Respondent entered the shop with a trolley containing empty bags and filled them
with items before attempting to leave the shop.
1 See Member of the Executive Council for Economic Development, Environment and Tourism v
Mogahlane (2019) 40 ILJ 315 as well as Knhumalo v Member of the Executive Council for Education:
KwaZulu Natal 2014 (5) SA 579 (CC)
3
[8] | He was stopped by security personnel and chose to run out of the store to escape
the scene.
[9] The Applicant subsequently charged the Second Respondent with misconduct
under regulation 5 (expeditious process) read with regulation 9(2)(b) of the South
African Police Service Disciplinary Regulations of 2016. The Second
Respondent was accused of theft and of tarnishing the Applicant's reputation,
bringing its name into disrepute.
[10] On 11 February 2022, the First Respondent was appointed as chairperson of the
disciplinary hearing.
[11] The Second Respondent admitted the charges and pleaded guilty.
[12] In mitigation, he argued that he had 19 years' service and was a first offender.
He also contended that he had financial commitments and that he suffered from
bipolar disorder. Additionally, he submitted.a medical report from a psychiatrist,
confirming his condition and stating that it was probable he committed the offence
while being absent-minded.
[13] The Applicant presented, aggravating circumstances and submitted that the
offence was premeditated and that the Second Respondent had every
opportunity to explain himself when he was stopped at the exit.
[14] The First Respondent subsequently sanctioned the Second Respondent to a two
months’ suspension without pay.
[15] Aggrieved by the disciplinary outcome (sanction), the Applicant approached the
court, seeking to review and set aside the decision described above that was
issued on 25 March 2022.
Grounds for review