The appellant was employed as an accounts clerk in the Ministry of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs. He performed his duties at the Deeds Registry. His duties included calculating stamp duty receipting the monies received and filing documents for registration of title deeds.
Following allegations of fraud in that appellant under receipted public funds received he was charged in terms of the Public Service Regulations, 2000. Five charges were initially preferred against the appellant. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
The appellant was initially employed by the respondent as a general hand in October 2001. He was then transferred to respondent’s Pomona Service Station where he worked as a forecourt attendant until 3 March 2011 when the employment relationship was terminated.
It is the respondent’s case that the appellant voluntarily resigned by tendering a resignation letter. More
This is an appeal against the determination of an arbitrator.
Arbitrator was to determine:
(i) Whether or not the employee was brought before a medical board.
(ii) Whether or not the case is now prescribed.
The arbitrator made factual findings on the basis of evidence before him that the Appellant was placed before a Board (Medical) and was advised to report for duty but that he did not do so. Secondly, the Learned Arbitrator made a finding that the dispute [which arose some four (4) years before the matter was brought for resolution] had prescribed. More
In argument before this court respondent focused on appellant’s failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Appellant did not give a written response to the argument. In his oral submissions he simply stated that he was advised to appeal to this court. As he appeared in person, he was apparently unaware of the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies.
Indeed such remedies are provided for by the National Employment Code enacted as S.I. 15/06. Section 8 of the Code provides for an appeal to an Appeals Officer against the decision of a Disciplinary Committee (DC). Appellant in casu was aggrieved by the decision... More
On the 8th of January, 2014, through his erstwhile legal practitioner, Appellant filed an appeal with this Court. The grounds of appeal can be gleaned from pages 5 – 7 of the record. These are that:-
1. Respondent misdirected itself of a point of law and on the facts in finding that Appellant was guilty of misconduct and that he was lawfully dismissed as
1.1. Appellant was not given sufficient particulars of the charges.
1.2. The Disciplinary Committee violated the Interfresh Limited Code of Conduct as well as the rules of natural justice in that he was not afforded an... More
