The applicant is employed by the respondent as its Chief Executive Officer from 2014.
Disciplinary proceedings were commenced against applicant on 25 February 2020 as a result of which the applicant was suspended pending disciplinary proceedings. He is, in these proceedings challenging the manner in which he was suspended and the
employer’s decision to institute disciplinary proceedings against him. The applicant prays for reinstatement without loss of salary and benefits. More
This is an application for leave to appeal this court’s decision to the supreme court.
The intended appeal seeks to challenge a finding of this court to the effect that the meeting held by the applicant was not valid for failure to comply with statutory provisions of the Rural District Councils Act [chapter 29:13]. The applicant seeks to argue, among other issues that it was the respondent who had called the meeting a special council meeting in terms of Section 46 (4) of the Rural District Councils Act when the meeting was in fact not a special council meeting as... More
The Applicant was engaged by the Respondent as a Laboratory Technician at its Lynx Mine. It is alleged that the Applicant absented himself from work resulting in his dismissal. The letter of dismissal is dated 14 January 2013. The application for condonation was made on 11 December 2013, some eleven (11) months later. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Respondent’s Disciplinary Committee where it found the Appellant guilty of being absent from work for more than 5 days without reasonable excuse and subsequently dismissed him.
The case has a long history of default judgments, rescission, striking off of the matter and at one point a withdrawal of the matter when there were efforts to have the matter settled out of court. The history being what it is, it is pertinent to note that it is only in the instant case that this case has been heard on the merits. It... More
The matter was placed before me as an appeal against a determination by the Responsible Disciplinary Committee handed down on the 6th August 2013 which determination found the Appellant guilty on a charge of violation of Schedule Part J, Sub-section 2 (b) of the relevant Code of Conduct and consequently a dismissal penalty was imposed. More
