DIG
ZLEPto
MWe
: if AX \ ¥ .
a Ny, ae
VD aS
OF SOUS
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, GQEBERHA
NotReportable
Case No: PR228/23
PR267/23
In the matter between:
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Applicant
and
GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTOR
BARGAINING COUNCIL First Respondent
WILLIAM RICHARD PRETORIUSN.O. Second Respondent
SIPHEPHELO’LUTHULI Third Respondent
LUNGISA CEZA Fourth Respondent
MZWABANTU MHLONTO Fifth Respondent
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Sixth Respondent
Heard: 24 July 2025
Delivered: 6 August 2025
2
JUDGMENT
DE KOCK, AJ
Introduction
[1] This matter concerns an application to review the arbitration award issued by the
second respondent. The applicant raised various grounds of review alleging that
the second respondent committed various irregularities and arrived at a decision
that a reasonable decision maker could not reach. The outcome of the award is
that the applicant committed an unfair labounpractice against the third respondent,
as contemplated by section 186 (2) (a) of the Labour Relations Act! (LRA), by
revoking the third respondent’s recommendation for appointment which resulted in
him not being appointed as Court Manager. The applicant was ordered to pay the
third respondent compensation as/a,so/atium in the amount of R61 104.75.
Background
[2] The facts in this matter are.largely common cause or undisputed. During 2019, the
applicant advertised two positions of Court Managers in respect of the Bhisho and
Mthahtha High Courts. On 1 November 2019 the applicant received the third
respondent's application in respect of the two positions advertised. The application
comprised,of a duly completed application form. In that form the third respondent
was. required to indicate if he has ever been convicted of a criminal offence or been
dismissed from employment and the third respondent’s response thereto was ‘NO’.
[3] Thereafter, on 23 January 2020, the third, fourth and fifth respondents were
interviewed, together with other candidates. The third respondent was the first
preferred candidate as he scored the highest points in the interviews, followed by
1 Act 66 of 1995, as amended.
3
one Ms Nonxuba and Mr Mhlontlo. The next step was to conduct reference checks
and the integrity check in respect of all recommended candidates.
[4] The recommended candidates were required to complete the HR Recruitment
Declaration forms, the Lexis Nexis consent and indemnity forms, and the interview
integrity check forms. On 23 January 2020 the third respondent completed the
forms and returned same to the applicant. According to the Lexis. Nexis Consent
and Indemnity Form, the third respondent was required to disclose if he has ever
been criminally charged and, if yes, he was required to provide the details of the
charge. He selected a ‘NO’, which meant that he has never been charged.
Furthermore, according to the interview integrity check form, the third respondent
was required to disclose if he had any criminal record or. charges against him or
pending against him. If yes, he was required to disclose the circumstances of the
aforesaid criminal record or charges. Once again, the third respondent wrote ‘NO’,
which meant that he had no criminal record or charges against him.
[5] On 12 February 2020, the applicant established that on or about 9 August 2019,
the third respondent was,arrested in respect of a case of driving a motor vehicle
while under the influence of alcohol. That case was investigated under CAS No.
102/08/2019, Amanzimtoti. On 17 February 2020, through Mr Mponzo, the Deputy
Director HR Eastern Capevand Mr Kroqwana, the Director Court Operations, the
applicant addressed an email to the third respondent, advising him about the
outcome of the criminal record checks and required him to respond thereto within
five days. In that email, the applicant attached a letter dated 17 February 2020,
signed by Mr Kroqwana.
[6] In response thereto, on 19 February 2020, the third respondent furnished the
applicant with an affidavit in terms of which he conceded that he knew about the
matter but relied on the fact that the matter was not enrolled by the prosecutor.
The third respondent also recorded that he could not disclose same because it
was nota pending matter. With the view of investigating this issue, on 24 February
2020, Mr Mponzo addressed another email to the third respondent, in terms of