According to the facts presented, there are three jurisdictional claims in accordance with strength of claim:
- DRC at the country where employment took place
- Australia as company is based in Australia
- South Africa as the individual was a South African national
All three countries are signatories to the Termination of Employment Convention, 1982.
The convection is the minimum standard required in the termination of employees and in the absence of applying specific national legislation, the articles of the convention are the best guide as to the legal principles to be applied.
Articles 7&8 are very much in accordance with the South African Labour relations Act.
The employment of a worker shall not be terminated for reasons related to the worker's conduct or performance before he is provided an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations made, unless the employer cannot reasonably be expected to provide this opportunity
This means that the company, procedurally needed to be afford the opportunity to address allegations. If there was not justification for such opportunity to be afforded the employee, then the dismissal is procedurally unfair.
1. A worker who considers that his employment has been unjustifiably terminated shall be entitled to appeal against that termination to an impartial body, such as a court, labour tribunal, arbitration committee or arbitrator.
If an employee is not afforded such appeal against termination (by way of being ordered out of the country) then the dispute resolution bodies have a duty not to acquiesce in the employers deliberate evasion or non-compliance with the conventions articles.
If the CCMA is able to establish jurisdiction, then there is every reason that the circumstances of the dismissal and potential evasive measures employed would strongly point to unfair dismissal by process alone, not yet looking at the merits of any reasons offered after the fact.
Should it be proven that the documents tendered as you say have been contrived to justify the dismissal and given that they can be proven to be false, then charges to that effect may be laid against the company's director and against the company's officials tendering the documents as proof. This would be a South African criminal matter.
In summary, if the facts presented can be substantiated and if the CCMA is able to establish jurisdiction over the case, then the protects for success are reasonably good.
I trust this answer is of value to you.