The applicant made a ruling in terms of section 93 5 ( c) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] in the following terms:
“1. The claim by the claimant for payment of service pay is hereby upheld in terms of section 12 c (2) of the Labour Act.
2. The respondent should therefore pay a total of $1 574-16 to the claimant.
3. The order should be complied with within thirty days from the date of receiving it.”
Pursuant to section 93 5 (a) and (b) of the Act the applicant has approached this court for confirmation of the said... More
This is an application for rescission of the judgment that was entered in default by this court on 28 October 2015. In this judgment the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. More
The appellant is employed by the respondent as a primary school senior teacher. She was charged for admitting two grade two pupils into her grade one class without the authority of the school head. This was a violation of paragraph 3 and 24 of the First schedule of S.I. 1/2000 as amended “Paragraph 3 of the First Schedule (Section 2) of Statutory Instrument 1 of 2000 (S.1. 1/2000) provides:
3. “Failure to perform any work or duty properly assigned, or failure to obey lawful instructions including circulars, instructions or orders issued by the Commission, the Treasury or the Accounting Officer... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award. The grounds of appeal can be summarized as follows:-
1. The Arbitrator misdirected himself on the law by shifting the burden of proof from Respondent to Appellant.
2. The Arbitrator erred on a question of law by basing his decision on the parties written submissions without holding an oral hearing.
3. The Arbitrator erred in finding that Respondent be paid a gratuity.
4. The Arbitrator misinterpreted Section 125 of the Labour Act. It does not oblige employers to prove cases for employees. More
