IRM 1501

INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

SEMESTER 1
ASSIGNMENT 3 _2024
UNIQUE NO: 150258

NAME: LUQMAAN PAGE

STUDENT NO: 21693439

DUE DATE: 27 MAY 2024

1
 Table of Contents

Question 1 ................................................................................3
Question 2 ............................................................................... 6

Question 3…..............................................................................7
Question 4 ................................................................................9

Bibliography ............................................................................13

Honesty Declaration ...............................................................14

2
Question 1

The facts of the case

This case involves 2 applicants, namely, Z Sidumo and the Congress of South African
Trade unions, and 3 respondents, namely, Rustenburg Platinum Mines LTD,
Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Commissioner Moropa.
This case deals specifically with unfair dismissals. The first applicant, Mr Sidumo, was
an employee at the Rustenburg Mining Company. At first Mr Sidumo was employed
as a constable, but was later promoted to a Grade II Patrolman1. In the year 2000, Mr
Sidumo was transferred to the Waterval Redressing Section, where he was
responsible for access control.2 On the 26 June 2000, Mr Sidumo was dismissed at
the redressing section, which he obviously opposed. Mr Sidumo was dismissed for
negligently failing to apply established and detailed individual search procedures,
which was very different from the normal search procedure followed in his previous
posts. 3

Mr Sidumo referred the unfair dismissal to the CCMA, where Conciliation failed.
Thereafter he challenged his dismissal under the compulsory arbitrary provisions of
the Labour Relations Act administered by the CCMA. Here again the Commissioner
Moropa, who was the third respondent in this case found him guilty of misconduct, but
came to a conclusion that a dismissal was not the appropriate sanction, and therefore,
he reinstated Mr Sidumo with 3 months compensation subject to a written warning
valid for three months.4

The mining company applied to the Labour Court for the reviewing of the decision
made by the Commissioner, where the Labour Court came to a decision that the matter
did not contain a reviewing irregularity and dismissed the application subject to costs,

1 Sidumo and Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd and Others (CCT 85/06) [2007] ZACC 22;
[2007] 12 BLLR 1097 (CC); 2008 (2) SA 24 (CC) ; (2007) 28 ILJ 2405 (CC); 2008 (2) BCLR 158
(CC) (5 October 2007) par 3 (herein after referred to as ‘ Sidumo Case’)
2 Sidumo Case par 3
3 Sidumo Case par 3
4 Sidumo Case par 7

3
but the appealed to the Labour Appeal court, where their findings where that some of
the reinstate the employee made by the commissioner where questionable, but the
dismissal was too harsh. Again the Mining company instituted an appeal application
to the Supreme Court of Appeal, where they eventually succeeded. The Supreme
Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Labour Court and the Labour Appeal
Court and came to a conclusion the Mr Sidumo’s dismissal was indeed fair. Mr Sidumo
the applied to the Constitutional Court for leave to appeal the judgement of the
Supreme Court of Appeal5.

The second applicant, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, who was not a
party to the preceding litigation, applied for leave to appeal in the Constitutional court
(herein after referred to as this court) in its own name and to support Mr Sidumo. Mr
Sidumo was a member of COSATU at the time of the dismissal. COSATU applied for
leave to appeal on the basis that findings of the Supreme Court of Appeal had adverse
implications on its members. Both applicants contested that the judgement of the
Supreme Court of Appeal raises constitutional issues.6

Legal question

The legal questions that arises are:

• Was the dismissal indeed fair?7

• Is a Constitutional issue raised?8

Reason for the court’s decision (Ratio Decidendi)

When it comes to the court’s decision, it has taken into consideration many aspects,
such as legislation and case law. This court began its assessment on the issue of
difference with an overview of the applicable statutory scheme. This court further
noticed that section 23(1) of the Constitution9 provides that everyone has a right to fair
labour practises, including employees. This ensures employees’ security of
employment. This court then takes it further by looking at the Labour Relations Act

5 Sidumo Case par 9

6 Sidumo Case par 11
7 Sidumo Case par 62
8 Sidumo Case par 50
9 Section 23(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.

4
(hereafter referred to as LRA). Section 185 of the LRA10 states, that every employee
has the right not to be unfairly dismissed or subject to unfair labour practises and it
makes provision for the effective resolution of labour disputes11. Furthermore article 8
of the International Labour Organisation Convention on Termination of Employment
158 of 198212 requires commissioners to determine disputes as impartial
adjudicators.13

Taking into consideration the above mentioned, this compelled the conclusion of the
court to be that commissioners should determine the fairness of dismissals as impartial
adjudicators, keeping the interest of employees and employers in balance. In the
courts view, this finding, meant that the Supreme Court of Appeal had made a mistake,
firstly on the reliance of the code of Good Practise and secondly on the approach to
the enquiry of the sanction. This court emphasised the fact that in our statutory
scheme, fairness was something that had to be addressed objectively, in this process
it is important to hold the balance of the interests of employee and employer evenly.
In this regard the court quoted the following excerpt from National Union Workers of
SA v Vetsak Co–operative Ltd14

This court came to a conclusion that the action of the CCMA Commissioner in deciding
unfair dismissal disputes cannot be characterised as the implementation of legislation,
nor does it amount to administration. The action performed by commissioners in
resolving unfair dismissal disputes is clearly a judicial function.15

When taking into consideration all of the above mentioned, it’s clear to see that
constitutional issues arises, due to the rights of employees not being taken into
consideration.

The findings

The Constitutional Court’s findings were that the primary purpose of the Labour
Relations Act is to give effect to the right to fair labour practises section 3 of the LRA,

10 Section 185 of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995.

11 Sidumo Case par 57
12 International Labour Organisation Convention on Termination of Employment,158 of 1982, article
8
13 Sidumo Case par 61
14 1996 4 SA 577 (A); 1996 17 ILJ 455 (A).
15 Sidumo Case par 215

5
which binds commissioners, provides that the person who applies the Act must
interpret its provisions to give effect to the primary object, in complying with the
Constitution. All actions performed by the commissioner as well as the CCMA, should
therefore, be in line with the provisions in the LRA.

The test of the Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court developed a test to determine the fairness of labour related
matters. This involves analysing whether the employer’s decision was fair. The court
will look if the decision falls in the prescribed range of the reasonable options available
to a reasonable employer in that situation. It also involves the evaluation of the
procedure that was followed by the employer in making the decision. The court
considers whether the employee was given an opportunity to raise his view point of
the situation.

QUESTION 2

Research is of utmost importance, because it helps you to obtain a detailed analysis

of everything that forms the basis of your research.

Conducting research, holds many advantages, such as:

• It broadens your knowledge and keeps you updated with new information.

• Research eliminates confusion, when you are reading opinions of experts.

• It also allows you to gain proper understanding om a specific subject.

• It helps you to collaborate with others when conducting research.

• Research improves your writing skills.

6
 • It helps you to learn, with regards to the methods and issues that require
investigation.16

In law there are 2 basic methods of doing research, namely, Document-Based

Research and Empirical Research.

Document-Based Research involves reading, analysing and comparing various

documents and other sources of law. Document-based research can be broken up
into three parts, namely, planning of research, doing the research and reporting on
your research.17

Empirical research is also called quantitative research. It refers to the process of

collecting data and the analysing it. The term data refers to scientific research for
numeric or verbal information that is collected during the research process. The
components of empirical research includes describing the research topic, exploring
the research topic, explaining the research topic and evaluating the research topic.18

QUESTION 3

The facts of the case

This case consists of two parties, namely, Global and Local Investment Advisors (Pty)
Ltd (appellant) and Nickolaus Ludick Fouche (respondent). This case was heard on
24 February 2020 in the Supreme Court of Appeal (herein after referred to as “SCA”)
and judgement was delivered on 18 March 2020.

On 23 November 2015, the Respondent, who is a mining consultant, gave a written

mandate to the Appellant, to act as his agent, to invest money with Investic Bank on
his behalf.19 The written mandate indicated that all instructions must be sent via fax or
email, with the Respondents signature. The money was then invested in a Corporate
Cash Manager (CCM) account in the name of the Respondent.

16 M Swanepoel and N Mabeka, Introduction to Research Methodology (University of South Africa

2018) 3.
17 Swanepoel and Mabeka, Introduction to Research Methodology 9.
18 Swanepoel and Mabeka, Introduction to research methodology 21.
19 Global and Local Investments Advisors (Pty) Ltd v Fouche (71/2019) [2020] ZASCA 8: 2021 (1)
SA 371 (SCA) (18 March) par 1 (herein after referred to as ‘Global Case”)

7
In August 2016, the Respondent’s g-mail was hacked and the fraudsters utilised his
authentic e-mail credentials, send three e-mails, in which they instructed the Appellant
to transfer a specified amount to accounts of named third parties at First National Bank
(FNB)20

The Appellant acted in response of the e-mail and transferred the funds from Mr
Fouche’s CCM account to unknown third parties. The total amount paid out was R
804 000.

The court of first instance, the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg,
determined that there had been a breach in the mandate and that the Appellant was
liable to be reimbursed in the amount of R 804 000.21 The High Court, therefore,
ordered Global to pay Mr Fouche’s costs.

The appeal is thus brought before the Supreme Court of Appeal with the leave of the
High Court.

Legal question

• Is an electronic signature a valid signature in terms of the Electronic

Communications and Transactions Act?22

• What is a proper interpretation of a written mandate and has Global acted in

breach thereof?23

Reason for the court’s decision (Ratio Decidendi)

The SCA held the following:

In constructing a mandate, the context must be taken into consideration.24 In both the
Commercial and Legal world, signatures are used to determine authority and can be
checked for authenticity.

20 Global Case par 3

21 Global Case par 1
22 Global Case par 4
23 Global Case par 9
24 Global Case par 9

8
The judge made reference to the case of Van Vuuren v Van Vuuren (1854) 2 Searie
116 at 12125, in which the court held that a signed document means that the signature
represents the name of the person who is to authenticate.26

The judge also made reference to the case of Da Silva v Janowsky 1982 (3) SA 205
(A) [1982] All SA 43 (A)27 and Harpur NO Givindamall and Another [1993] ZASCA 110;
1993 (4) SA 751 (A)28, the court gave extensive and authoritative definitions of
signature. The court held that a signature does not only refer to the written characters
on a document, but also to the fact of the signature in relation to the contents of the
document on which it appears.

With regards to the mandate, all instructions had to be sent via fax or e-mail to a
specified tax number or e-mail address, but there is no layed out dispatching fax
number or e-mail address that could serve as an authenticated source.

Taking the above mentioned into consideration, its clear to see that the dispatching g-
mail of the Respondent together with his name is not an authenticated source.

This court further held that the instruction to transfer the funds were not proper and
contrary to the mandate. The e-mails, in this case were fraudulent, they were not
written nor sent by the person they purported to original form, therefore not binding the
Respondent.

The findings

The court held that the e-mails sent on behalf of the Respondent, were in fact
fraudulent. The emails were fraudulent because they were not written and dispatched
by the person or persons without the authority to do so, thus not binding the
respondent. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed with costs.

QUESTION 4

This case consists of four parties, namely, the African National Congress (herein after
referred to as ‘ANC’) (Applicant), the Electoral Commission of South Africa (first

25 Van Vuuren v Van Vuuren (1854) 2 Searie 116 at 121

26 Global Case par 12
27 Da Silva v Janowsky 1982 (3) SA 205 (A) [1982] All Sa 43 (A)
28 Harpur No v Givindamall and Another [1993] ZASCA 110; 1993 (4) SA 751 (A)

9
respondent), the Chief Electoral Officer of the Electoral Commission of South Africa
(second respondent) and the Umkhonto Wesizwe political Party (herein after referred
to as “MK Party) (third respondent.)

This case was heard on 19 March 2024 and judgement was delivered on 26 March
2024.

The Applicant applied for a judicial review and a setting aside of the decision made by
the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, on 7 September 2023, duly delegated by the
second Respondent, to register the MK Party.29

Both the ANC and the MK Party are registered in terms of section 15(1) of the Electoral
Commission Act 51 of 1996.

However, the ANC does not seek an order against the MK Party, but it sited them in
their proceedings.30 The Electoral Commission opposes the application of the ANC,
with recognition to its Constitutional duty to observe high standards in litigation, the
Electoral Commission has set out its version before the court.

The ANC further wishes to invoke the court’s review jurisdiction in terms of section
20(1) of the Electoral Commission Act.31 In this piece of legislation, provisions are
made that applications need to be brought within three days of the impugned decision
being made. The ANC failed to do so.

It is for this reason that the ANC seeks condonation for its delay in bringing the
application.32 They also wish that the impugned decision be reviewed under the legal
principle.

There are also a variety of legal questions that arises when it comes to this case.
Firstly being, whether the ANC’s delay in bringing the application should be accepted?
Secondly, whether this court has jurisdiction over the relief the ANC seeks? Thirdly,
whether the ANC pre-empted this impugned decision and lastly, whether there was a
proper application for the registration of the MK Party when the impugned decision

29 African National Congress v Electoral Commission of South Africa and Others (001/2024EC)
[2024] ZAEC 3 (26 March 2024) par 1 (herein after referred to as ‘ANC case’)
30 ANC Case par 4
31 ANC Case par 6
32 ANC Case par 6

10
was made, and when this decision was made, did the DCEO act beyond the scope of
his powers as set out in section 15(1)33

When it comes to the reason for this court’s decision, with regards to urgency and
condonation, the court held that urgency in the review of applications brought before
this court is a statutory requirement. Section 20(1) with rule 6(1), requires an
application is brought within three days of the impugned decision and conducted
urgently.34 Since the ANC failed to do so, they are barred to bring the application,
unless due to a good course, this court directs otherwise. This is the main reason why
the ANC has applied for condonation for bring this application late.35

This court took into account that the ANC had two opportunities to object to MK Party’s
application for registration. First, the MK Party could oppose it within 14 days after the
1 June 2023 section 15(4A) notice was published in the Government Gazette. It could
again oppose it within 14 days of the 30 June 2023 section 15(4A) notice was
published in the Government Gazette. In both cases the ANC failed to object to the
MK Party’s application for registration, therefore, it has itself to blame.36This court
further held that the ANC has no merit in its contention, therefore is barred from
bringing the application and also non-suited by operation of law. Due to the above-
mentioned reasons, the ANC, in terms of rule 6, read with rule 10. Does not meet the
requirements for condonation.

With the courts review jurisdiction, it held that the ANC argues that this court does
noes not have jurisdiction to review the DCEO’s decision, as this is not a decision of
the Electoral Commission. Only the CEO and DCEO at the Electoral Commission can
make the decision to register a political party.37
This court further takes into consideration the context and purpose of the Electoral
Commission Act, the interpretation of section 20(1) which the ANC is contending for
is not appropriate, as it will undermine the resolution scheme created in the Electoral
Commission Act.38

33 ANC Case par 10

34 ANC Case par 13
35 ANC Case par 14
36 ANC Case par 34
37 ANC Case par 39
38 ANC Case par 41

11
The ANC failed to use internal dispute mechanisms when it appealed the DCEO’s
decision to the Electoral commission. The appeal was dismissed because the ANC is
non suited in terms of section 16(2)(b) from impugning the decision, therefore is
application is also not sustainable, because the ANC can only doubt the validity of the
Electoral commission’s 24 November decision invoking the Electoral Court’s
jurisdiction in terms of section 20(1). When it appealed the impugned decision to the
Electoral commission, it failed to raise grounds in these proceedings.39

The Electoral Court, therefore, lacks jurisdiction to review the DCEO’s 7 December
2023 decision.40

Taking a look at the merits of the case, this court further held that the matter that
should be considered, is the issue, whether the DCEO acted lawfully and complied
with peremptory requirements for the registration of the MK Party.41

This court has also made reference to the case of Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd and
others v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council and Others, that
allowed this court to come to the conclusion that, in terms of the principle of legality,
the CEO could not register a political party in terms of a procedure that he is not
empowered to do by the Electoral Commission Act.42

This court further held that the requirements for the registration of the MK Party were
fully met in terms of section Electoral Commission Act. This court further stated that
there is no need for the applicant to start the registration process from afresh once it
has been rejected by the Electoral Commission. 14 days had passed since the s
15(4A) notice was published and the ANC failed to register a formal objection.
Therefore, this allows the for the registration of the MK Party in terms of section
16(1).43

In conclusion the MK Party is now a legally registered political party.

39 ANC Case par 43

40 ANC Case par 46
41 ANC Case par 49
42 ANC Case par 54
43 ANC Case par 60

12
Bibliography

BOOK
Swanepoel and Mabeka, Introduction to Research Methodology
Swanepoel and Mabeka, Introduction to Research Methodology (University of
South Africa 2018)
CASE LAW

• Sidumo v Rustenburg Platinum Mines Ltd & Others 2007 12 BLLR 1097 (CC)
• Global & Local Investment Advisors (Pty) Ltd v Fouche (71/2019[2020]
ZASCA 8; 2021 (1) SA 371 SCA (18 March 2020)
• African National Congress v Electoral Commission of South Africa and Others
(001/2024 EC) [2024] ZAEC 3 (26 March 2024).

LEGISLATION
• Constitution of the republic of South Africa
• Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995
• International Labour Organisation Convention on Termination of
Employment,158 of 1982

13
ACADEMIC DECLRARATION OF HONESTY

Declaration: …………………………………..

1. I understand what academic dishonesty entails and am aware of UNISA’s policies

in this regard.
2. I declare that this assignment is my own, original work. Where I have used someone
else’s work I have indicated this by using the prescribed style of referencing. Every
contribution to, and quotation in this assignment from the work or works of other
people has been referenced according to this style.
3. I have not allowed, and will not allow, anyone to copy my work with the intention of
passing it off as his or her own work.
4. I did not make use of another student’s work and submitted it as my own.

NAME: LUQMAAN PAGE

STUDENT NUMBER: 216 934 39

MODULE CODE: IRM1501

SIGNATURE:

DATE: 27 MAY 2024

14
15