Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse Court Judgements by court
This is an appeal against the Respondent’s decision. The appellant was employed by the respondent as a technician. In the course of his duty he went to work on a fault at Peterhouse, whereas the papers said that he worked at Dombi Farm. It was found out that the Appellant’s papers were not in order. Investigations were instituted. He was asked to write a report and he did. Later he was asked again to write a more detailed report. He refused and referred the investigator to the earlier report. Investigations established that no work was carried out at Dombi Farm. More

The applicant in this matter applied for review of the decision of the Respondent’s Disciplinary Committee which was made on the 23rd of March 2009. When parties appeared before this Court the respondent raised points in limine i.e. (i) That the respondent filed its application well out of time i.e. about (3) three months after the hearing. (ii) He did not even file an application for condonation of the late application. (iii) Applicant did not exhaust the internal remedies provided in the Code of Conduct. More

This is an urgent application for interim relief by the applicant in terms of section 92 C of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01] as read with rule 34 of the Labour Court Rules S I 59/06. More

The brief history of this matter is that respondent is a former employee of Econet Wireless. He was dismissed from employment in 2004. Respondent challenged his dismissal in 2010. The arbitrator found that the respondent was unfairly dismissed because he was not dismissed in terms of a Code of Conduct. The arbitration also found that there was no fair hearing because the there was no proof that respondent was accorded representation and that he was given adequate time to prepare for the hearing. More

This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent’s internal appeals committee where it upheld the appellant’s dismissal following allegations of theft and conduct inconsistent with his duties in contravention s D4 and D5 of the respondent’s Code of Conduct. More