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
The matter was placed before me as an application for quantification of damages. Although the matter was initially set down for the 26th March, 2012 the matter was postponed for at least four occasions to allow for negotiations with a view to an out of court settlement of the case. On the last date of hearing i.e. 16 October, 2013 the applicant was directed to place before the court proof of his claims for medical aid and school fees. The proof was to be tendered at the latest by the 25th of October, 2013. The respondent was also granted leave... More
This is an application for condonation of late filing of an appeal by Chidhuza (the applicant).
The requirements which an applicant has to satisfy in such applications have been clearly stated in numerous cases. These are:-
- The degree of non-compliance;
- The explanation for the non-compliance;
- The importance of the case
- The prospects of success in the main matter;
- Interest in the finality of the case;
- The convenience to the Court and respondent. More
