The audi alteram partem rule is a fundamental principle of natural justice that requires a fair hearing before a decision is made that could negatively impact an individual.

In a recent court judgment at Labour Court, the Labour Court once again confirmed this trite legal principle and reaffirmed that this principle ensures that individuals have a chance to present their case and respond to the allegations before being judged. It was hi-lighted that this principle is crucial for ensuring fairness in administrative, legal and disciplinary processes.

The facts:

 The applicant, Mr Schouten, a former relief commander in the Crime Intelligence Unit, was dismissed after being found guilty of unlawfully possessing ammunition suspected to be stolen. The ammunition was allegedly discovered in his workplace locker, to which only he had access, and at his home during a subsequent search. The applicant denied the allegations, claiming the evidence was fabricated. The matter was referred to the Bargaining Council, where the arbitrator upheld the SAPS’s version of events, finding that the dismissal was substantively fair.

The procedural fairness, was however an issue as the disciplinary process was flawed as the presiding officer had relied solely on written statements without allowing the applicant to cross-examine his accusers, despite the case turning on a direct factual dispute. It was held that prima facie, the dismissal was unfair as the applicant was denied the opportunity to confront his accusers and to put questions to them and as such it was found that although the dismissal was substantively fair it was procedurally unfair due to the denial of a fair hearing. The applicant was awarded compensation for the unfair dismissal.

The abovementioned case is one of many cases in which the Court emphasised the right of a party to have their matter heard fairly, which includes the right to cross-examine the witnesses who testifies against it in any proceedings.

In terms of Schedule 8 of the Labour Relations Act (LRA), it is required by the employer, that the employer should conduct an investigation and allow the employee to state a case in response to disciplinary allegation as part of the requirements for rendering dismissals procedurally fair. Moreover so, Section 188(1)(b) of the LRA places the onus firmly on the employer to prove that a dismissal was procedurally fair, and the holding of a hearing lies at the heart of procedural fairness in which the employee has the right to confront his accusers.

 This trite principle is applied in all aspects of our law whether it is Labour related, Criminal matter or civil litigation.

Reference List:

• Schouten v Safety and Security Sectoral Bargaining Council (SSSBC) and others (C44/2002) [2025] ZALCCT 36 (29 May 2025)
• http://www.labourlawadvice.co.za