IMATU obo Fortuin v City of Cape Town and Others [2026] ZALCCT 24

Court: Labour Court of South Africa, Cape Town

Judge: May AJ

Date of Delivery: 19 February 2026

Factual Matrix

Fortuin, an Administrative Officer in Library and Information Services, was dismissed for dishonesty after allegedly answering "no" when asked in a promotion interview whether she had ever been convicted at a disciplinary hearing, despite having been found guilty of serious misconduct in 2019. She maintained she had disclosed her record. The HR practitioner who conducted the interview testified she recorded "no" as the answer. The arbitrator preferred the employer's version and upheld the dismissal as substantively and procedurally fair. The applicant sought review.

Reasoning for the Finding

"[12] In assessing the conduct of the arbitrator, the Court is enjoined to ask: 12.1 In terms of his or her duty to deal with the matter with the minimum of legal formalities, did the process that the arbitrator employed give the parties a full opportunity to have their say in respect of the dispute? 12.2 Did the arbitrator identify the dispute he was required to arbitrate... 12.5 Is the arbitrator's decision one that another decision-maker could reasonably have arrived at based on the evidence?" [para 12]

"[14] The enquiry into the reasonableness of the decision arrived at by the arbitrator requires an examination of the merits of the case. This task is informed by the standard review test as enunciated in Sidumo... 'That test involves the reviewing court examining the merits of the case 'in the round' by determining whether, in the light of the issue raised by the dispute under arbitration, the outcome reached by the arbitrator was not one that could reasonably be reached on the evidence and other material properly before the arbitrator.'" [para 14, quoting Herholdt]

"[15] In other words, whether this Court differs with the outcome or the finding of fact or law made by the arbitrator is not sufficient for the Court to interfere, something more is required for thus is the dividing line between the Court's powers on review versus appeal. It assists therefore to restate that where the result can reasonably be reached by the route followed by the arbitrator, the Court cannot intervene." [para 15]

"[16] In Solidarity obo Van Zyl v KPMG Services(Pty) Ltd and Others, Fourie JA held that: 'While arbitrators should always aspire to meet the exacting standard set by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Stellenbosch Farmers' Winery for the proper assessment of conflicting versions by a finder of fact, an arbitration award that does not live up to this standard will not automatically be subject to review.'" [para 16]

Finding/Order

1. The application was dismissed.

2. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs.

The Court held that the arbitrator's award was reasonable, that there was a material connection between the evidence and the result, and that the review therefore failed.