is an application for Condonation for the late noting of an appeal.
The factors to be taken into consideration in an application such as this are the extent of the delay, the reasonableness of the explanation for the delay and the prospects of success see General Kodzwa v Secretary of Health and Another 1999 (1) ZLR 313 (S). I propose to consider the said factors in relation to this case. More
Appellant’s grounds of appeal as per his Notice of Appeal are that:-
The Respondent’s General Manager erred on point of law in;
(a) Finding that Appellant was guilty of theft a charge which is not supported by the facts.
(b) The decision to dismiss the Appellant was predetermined.
(c) Appellant guilty when the hearing was held n contravention of the Code of Conduct and was marred by irregularities namely:-
(i) Appellant was never given an opportunity to
listen to the testimony of the witnesses who testified in his absence.
(ii) Appellant was never afforded an opportunity to
cross-examine the witnesses.... More
This is an appeal against the decision by the Respondent’s Chief Executive Officer dated 25th November, 2013, which decision confirmed an earlier decision by the Hearing Committee to dismiss Appellant from employment.
The material background facts are as follows:
The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a truck driver. On the 11th of October 213 he left Harare on a trip to Zambia. He returned on the 29th of October 2013. He had been given a full tank of diesel and 150 litres header tank for the trip. Upon his return from the trip he had a shortfall of... More
The applicant raised a preliminary issue in these proceedings that the application was opposed as the person who filed the opposing affidavit did not provide proof of the capacity in which she deposed to the affidavit. It was argued further that she had no authority to depose to the affidavit. More
At the onset of the appeal the respondent raised points in limine. In response to the same appellant indicated to the court that he had preliminary points to raise before he could respond to the points by the respondent. In that regard the court allowed that the appellant addresses it first on the points that it has. The appellant took 3 points in that the form used did not bear the inscription LC 2, that the response and the Heads of Argument are out of time by about 2 months. The respondent conceded the omissions but sought the court’s indulgence... More
