BANKING SECTOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING AUTHORITY v SEETE AND OTHER: [2026] ZALCJHB 118

Date of Judgment & Seat of Court: 14 April 2026; Labour Court of South Africa, Johannesburg

Name of Judge(s): Prinsloo J

Summary of Factual Matrix: 

The First Respondent, Ms Seete, held the position of General Manager: Corporate Services at the Applicant (BankSeta). She was dismissed for misconduct relating to two charges of gross negligence: (1) failure to manage a travel contract with Travel With Flair, resulting in irregular expenditure of R781,152.33; and (2) failure to manage a Vodacom communication contract, resulting in irregular expenditure of R1,417,459.09. The arbitrator found the dismissal substantively unfair and ordered reinstatement with limited back pay. The Applicant sought review of the arbitration award.

Summary of Findings:

"[88] The test in Sidumo dictates the resolution of the controversy, i.e. was the decision one to which no reasonable arbitrator could come on the issues and evidence that served before the commissioner. At the heart of the exercise is a fair reading of the award, in the context of the body of evidence adduced and an even-handed assessment of whether such conclusions are untenable. Only if the conclusion is untenable is a review and setting aside warranted."

"[105] In my view, there is merit in this ground for review, as there are obvious difficulties with the arbitrator's assessment of the evidence and her findings based on the evidence and her assessment thereof."

"[116] The Respondent never disclosed her understanding of what the contract amount was for, her version that it only covered service management fees was not put to the Applicant's witnesses and neither was the CEO of TWF, nor the employee from SCM called as witnesses to support the Respondent's version that they shared her understanding. The Respondent's understanding was not aligned with the terms of the TWF contract and it became evident during her testimony that her understanding and interpretation of the contract, was nothing but her own, personal understanding and interpretation and that it did not align with the Applicant and her superior's understanding thereof."

"[133] In Sidumo and another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd and others Ngcobo J stated at 268: '[W]here a commissioner fails to have regard to the material facts, the arbitration proceedings cannot, in principle, be said to be fair because the commissioner fails to perform his or her mandate. In so doing, in the words of Ellis the commissioner's action prevents the aggrieved party from having its case fully and fairly determined. This constitutes a gross irregularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings, as contemplated by s 145(2)(a)(ii) of the LRA. And the ensuing award falls to be set aside not because the result is wrong but because the commissioner has committed a gross irregularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings.'"

As such the Court held that the arbitrator committed gross irregularities by: (i) accepting untested and unsubstantiated evidence from the employee; (ii) failing to apply the principles governing credibility assessments as set out in Sasol Mining (Pty) Ltd v Ngeleni NO; (iii) ignoring material evidence presented by the Applicant; and (iv) failing to conduct a proper like-for-like comparison in respect of the inconsistency challenge. The award was found to be one that no reasonable decision-maker could reach on the available evidence.

7. Order:

"1. The arbitration award dated 5 June 2023 and issued under case number GATW2051-22 is reviewed and set aside; 

 2. The dispute is remitted to the Third Respondent for a hearing de novo on the issue of substantive fairness before a commissioner other than the Second Respondent; 

 3. There is no order as to costs."