A discharge of proceedings is a request that may be made if the party who does not bear the burden of proof in a case is satisfied that the party bearing the burden of proof has presented a case so weak that it has not provided a prima facie case. The party who does not bear the burden of proof then requests a discharge of the proceedings after the first party has closed his case. If the request is granted, the presiding judge shall decide on the case without hearing evidence from the party who does not bear the burden of proof. Sethole and Others v. Kenneth Kaunda District Municipality (LC) (Unreported Case No.JS 576/13) (Snyman AJ) concerned a case of discharge of proceedings. Snyman AJ noted that a plaintiff would be acquitted by the court if he did not recognize prima facie evidence. When deciding on the discharge of the proceedings, the court had to determine whether the applicant had a duty to decide a case. Thus, the discharge of the proceeding is inextricably linked to the party bearing the burden. An order of discharge of the proceeding indicates an exemption from a particular case. Under South African law, such a decision amounts to a rejection of the applicant`s proceedings if the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to support the various elements of his claim.
In the recent case liberty Group Ltd v. K&D Marketing & Others (1290/18) [2020] ZASCA 41, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) considered whether the plaintiff had the right, after a discharge of the proceedings, to reopen his case and make his initial claim to the same pleadings in order to thwart a statute of limitations. Discharge of the proceedings can be defined as an act of release from guilt and release from consequences, obligations or penalties in relation to a particular case. Under South African law, the court`s discharge rule amounts to an order dismissing the plaintiff`s action on the ground that no injunction can be issued in respect of that action. Unfortunately for one employer, it was concluded that the proceeding discharge rule is not enforceable under the CCMA rules, as each party must have a reasonable and fair opportunity to present their respective cases to the CCMA through arbitration and arbitration, even if the employee refers a so-called “empty case”. In Mpanza and Another v. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Correctional Services and Others [2017] 10 BLLR 1062 (LC), the applicants refused to reassign their duties and temporarily transfer them to another entity under the Public Service Act 103 of 1994 and filed a complaint. They were informed that they would not be paid if they did not relate to the service.
The applicants did not register for the service and the employer then informed them that this unauthorized absence was treated as paid leave and that the employer intended to deduct the amounts from their wages for the period during which they had not worked. Before the deductions were made, claimants were asked in writing to provide information about their unauthorized absence and why no deduction should be made from their wages if they had not made themselves liable. No substitutions were received and the leave without pay was then implemented and deducted from their salaries. This judgment confirms that decisions to discharge the proceedings in a court case that cannot be successfully challenged and/or initiated de novo will lead to the conclusion of the case. “If, at the end of the applicant`s case, discharge is sought by the proceeding, it is not if the evidence cited by the applicant has determined what ultimately needs to be established, but whether there is evidence on which a court that reasonably applies its opinion to such evidence could or could (should not, nor should) rule for the applicant. To reach a conclusion as to whether discharge should be granted, it is not necessary for a court to critically consider all the evidence that would be required by a court at the end of a trial to render a judgment. The duty of the court is less strict, as there should only be evidence that a court could or could find for the plaintiff. This dispute occurred prior to the coming into force of amendments to Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998. With regard to the amendments, it is clear that if the discrimination is based on a listed reason, the responsibility lies with the defendant. However, where the discrimination is based on an unlisted arbitrary reason, the applicant is liable.
Snyman AJ examined the situation prior to the changes (since these changes were not retroactive) to determine whether the plaintiffs in this case were required to give prima facie evidence. Snyman AJ noted that the position before the amendments is the same as that of Articles 6(1) and 11, as well as the introduction of Article 6(4), which reflected how the Labour Court (LC) had already interpreted and applied Articles 6 and 11 before the amendments. According to Snyman AJ, the applicants in the present case were required to prove discrimination on an unregistered ground and were therefore required to provide prima facie evidence in order to avoid a discharge of the case. This article is a general fact sheet and should not be used or used as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for errors or omissions or for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the information contained herein. Always contact your legal advisor for specific and detailed advice. Reserved Errors and Omissions (E&OE) Jacobs J. ultimately concluded that a Commissioner of Arbitration does not have the power to grant discharge to the proceeding. If a commissioner of arbitration does this, it would be found that he or she committed a flagrant irregularity in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings and exceeded his or her powers as a commissioner, making the award auditable. In April 2015, during the trial, K&D sought discharge of the case after Liberty`s evidence. The discharge test is set out in Gordon Lloyd Page & Associates v.
Rivera and Another 2001 (1) (SCA) “if there is evidence on which a court that reasonably applies its opinion to such evidence could or could (should not or should not) rule in favour of the plaintiff. K&D`s application was rejected and continued to cite its evidence. The verdict was handed down in September 2015 and K&D was acquitted by the court because the court found that Liberty had not provided enough evidence to prove its claim.