A planned office party turned sour when the money collected was confiscated by the police.

They accused an immigration officer at the Beitbridge Border Post of accepting bribes from two Zimbabwean nationals and claimed that the money was part of the bribe.

The officer, Khuliso Ravele, was subsequently fired by Home Affairs for misconduct relating to corruption.

She took the matter to arbitration, where she lost her case as the arbitrator did not believe her explanation. Ravele then appealed to the Johannesburg Labour Court to regain her job. 

Home Affairs, during its arguments before the Labour Court, raised a preliminary point, in which it told the court that there is no proper review application before it since Ravele is referred to as a “he” instead of a “she” in the founding and supplementary affidavit.

Acting Judge N Tshisevhe, however, outright dismissed this point and said that common errors by litigants do occur.

Ravele was charged with four counts of misconduct, during which she was accused of receiving R200 from one Zimbabwean national and R300 from the other, in exchange for granting them each a 90-day stay in South Africa. 

It is claimed that these amounts were placed by each of the Ndlovu sisters in their passports before it was handed to Ravele. Both the Ndlovus denied this. 

Ravele does not dispute that she is the one who stamped the passports of the two ladies. She, however, disputes taking money from the passports.

She explained that she had collected money from her colleagues as they planned an office party to be held after work.

The commissioner, during the arbitration proceedings, however, concluded that because she did have money with her, she took the money placed inside the passports of the two ladies.

Judge Tshisevhe commented on this point that what baffles his mind is the fact that the applicant was found guilty of receiving money from the two ladies, while there was no evidence to support this. It was only an inference drawn by the commissioner, the judge said.

The arbitrator also ignored the evidence of Ravele’s supervisor, who testified that after the arrest,  he overheard a conversation between colleagues in the office who, among others, said that the money taken belonged to them as they were supposed to party after work that day.

The judge said the arbitrator was biased in accepting evidence that there was money in the two passports when they were handed to the applicant, and as a result, rejected the applicant’s version that there was no money handed to her.

The judge noted that the arbitrator accepted her dismissal as fair without providing reasons for dismissing her account.

The judge, in overturning the arbitrator’s findings, remarked that it is not a requirement that the award must be pristine, but it must be reasonable. The award will, however, be unreasonable if it is entirely disconnected from the evidence, unsupported by any evidence, and involves speculation by the arbitrator, he said.

The court found her dismissal to be substantively unfair, and Home Affairs was ordered to retrospectively reinstate her without any loss of salary and benefits.

zelda.venter@inl.co.za

Source link