This was supposed to be an application for condonationof late noting of appeal. The applicant is represented but has not filed Heads of Argument. The Rules require a party who is represented to file Heads of Argument (Rule 19). No reasonable explanation has been proffered. The legal practitioners of record have sent a correspondent to appear.(Mr Muhlekiwa of Mahuni&Mutatu Attorneys at Law). Mr Laita is said to be attending to a matter at Marondera Magistrates’ Court. There is no proof that this is so. Further even if this was so the Labour Court is superior to the Magistrates’ Court and... More
On the 28th October, 2015 I directed that the parties compile and file a full and proper record after which I would then consider whether to determine the matter on the record or direct that a court hearing be held.
The parties duly complied with the directive and having gone through the record, I am of the view that I can determine the appeal on the record. Section 89 (2)(a)(1) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] refers.
Appellant was dismissed from Respondent’s employ after having been found guilty of six out of eight counts of fraud. He appealed through the... More
In this case, the respondent alleges that he was employed by the appellant on 5 August 2011 up to October 2014. That he was guarding the respondent’s trucks and that a wage of $140-00 per month was agreed between the parties. More
The facts of the matter are largely common cause. The appellant was employed by the respondent as a Test Technician. On 31 March 2015, around 7.30 a.m. he was in the factory, together with some other workers, when Mr Dumisani Mhlanga, came to the section where they were working. This was at the shrink wrap section. Mr D. Mhlanga, referred to in the minutes of the hearing as Dumi, is the Manufacturing Executive in the respondent’s firm. It is not clear whether Dumi passed by the appellant’s work section fortuitously or had actually gone there to supervise the workers. Whatever... More
Respondent was employed by the appellant bank as a bank teller. She was charged for failure to comply with standing instructions or follow established procedures resulting in a substantial loss to the Bank. This was a violation of Category D (17) of the applicable Code.Disciplinary proceedings were conducted against her and she was dismissed. The facts of the case arethat the respondent approved a transaction, and in terms of the standing instructions she referred the client to the next appropriate bank employee. Thereafter the client or the application was referred to her superiors. The superior approved a withdrawal of forty... More
