A South African labour court has upheld the dismissal of a former Department of Home Affairs immigration officer accused of gross dishonesty at the Beitbridge port of entry.
The court found that the arbitration outcome against her was legally sound and supported by the evidence.
The case stemmed from incidents in 2016, when official stamps assigned to the officer were used to endorse a Zimbabwean passport and update the Movement Control System (MCS).
Acting judge Segopotjie Sheila Mphahlele dismissed an application brought by Sharon Mudau, who sought to overturn a ruling by the General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council (GPSSBC).
The council had found her dismissal substantively fair, following allegations that she had irregularly stamped a passport and updated immigration records while the foreign national in question was allegedly in police custody.
The court heard that the disputed events occurred on July 9, 2016, when stamps assigned to Mudau were used to endorse a Zimbabwean passport and update the MCS.
Investigators testified that the passport holder, Dellwin Boswell, was in custody at the time, raising questions about the legitimacy of the immigration entry.
Mudau maintained that she had properly verified the traveller’s identity before performing the stamping and system update, arguing that she had acted within standard immigration procedures.
- Zim headed for a political dead heat in 2023
- Record breaker Mpofu revisits difficult upbringing
- Tendo Electronics eyes Africa after TelOne deal
- Record breaker Mpofu revisits difficult upbringing
Keep Reading
She challenged the credibility of the state’s evidence and alleged that the arbitrator had failed to properly consider the testimony of potential defence witnesses.
However, the court found that the arbitration commissioner’s conclusions on substantive fairness were supported by documentary and testimonial evidence, including stamp allocations and system records linking the entries to Mudau’s official credentials.
Applying the well-established Sidumo reasonableness test, the court held that the commissioner’s findings on the merits of the misconduct fell within the range of decisions a reasonable decision-maker could reach and, therefore, could not be disturbed on review.
While the court initially scrutinised the commissioner’s reasoning on procedural fairness, it found that the conclusion that the employer had prevented defence witnesses from testifying was not supported by evidence. The judge described that aspect of the award as speculative and "untenable," and substituted it with a finding that the dismissal was both substantively and procedurally fair.
The application was dismissed, bringing finality to a dispute that has run for nearly a decade since the alleged misconduct occurred.
