The matter was placed before me as an application for dismissal of a matter in terms of Rule 19(3) and (4) of the Labour Court Rules, 2006. The application was opposed.
The applicant in his founding affidavit averred that the respondent filed an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal against the decision of the Arbitrator handed down on the 31st of August 2013. He had duly served his notice of opposition to the application on 24 September 2012. The respondent having then failed to file heads of argument in terms of the Rules he filed a chamber... More
“It will be contended that the Appeals Committee erred in one or more of the following:
1. The disciplinary committee misdirected itself in hearing and conducting the case leading to the Appellant being dismissed from work.
2. The Appellant clearly did his best as a prudent person to advise the disciplinary committee that their failure to call witnesses who had testified against the Appellant to be cross examined by him was to his prejudice.
3. There was a procedural irregularity by the disciplinary committee when they did not consider that the local sector official must notify the employee concerned that... More
This is an application for condonation of the late filing of an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Two issues arose at the commencement of the proceedings. The first issue was that Applicants’ legal practitioner was of the view that this was a composite application for condonation AND an application for leave to appeal both to be heard at the same time. After an exchange of pleasantries, it was resolved that the application for condonation was to be heard and a decision made which could then lead to an application for leave to appeal. More
The Appellant is employed as a Divisional Intelligence Officer by the Respondent. Proceedings of the Disciplinary hearing were conducted to inquire into and report on allegations that the Appellant had signed two contracts on behalf of the Central Intelligence Organisation with Leggim Enterprises worth forty eight thousand, nine hundred and seventy eight United States Dollars and seventy six cents ($48 978.76) and twenty eight thousand one hundred and twenty four United States Dollars and twenty cents (US $28 124.20) for the construction of a store room and water and oil separator without authority from the Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) PIO... More
This is an appeal against the respondent’s decision to down grade the appellant. The appellant alleges that the decision to demote him is grossly unreasonable, so grossly irrational that the matter becomes reviewable by this court.
The background facts of the matter are that the appellant was employed by the respondent as a Research Technician in 1982. Applicant’s qualifications are that he holds a National Diploma in Agriculture from Chibero College, he also holds a Diploma in Agricultural machinery from Germany and a post Graduate Diploma in Agricultural Engineering from Granfield Institute of technology. More
