Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse Court Judgements by court
This is an unopposed Chamber Application for granting of an appeal, made in terms of Rule 19 (3)(b) of the Labour Court Rules, Statutory Instrument 59 of 2006 (“the Rules”). Ordinarily, this is the sort of application that could be simply disposed of by way of acourt order, without the need to write a judgment. However, the factual background to this application reveals some procedural issues that, in my view, necessitate reasons for judgment. The applicant filed his application on 17 June 2014 under Case No LC/H/APP/249/14. This was after the respondent failed to file heads of argument in the... More

This is an appeal against the determination of the Respondent’s Appeals Authority which determination was handed down on the 19th of May 2023 and served on Appellant on the 23rd of May, 2023. The material background facts to the matter are as follows. The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a Loss Control Manager. On the 17th of April 2023 he was notified that, following a complaint by his immediate supervisor, the Respondent had reason to believe he had committed two acts of misconduct namely; (i) Contravention of Section 4 (g) of Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006 i.e. habitual... More

This is an appeal against an arbitral award wherein the appellant was alleging unfair dismissal, nonpayment of wages and underpayment of wages by respondent. The arbitrator dismissed the case on the basis that it had prescribed. More

Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. More

The appellant was a supervisor based at Holiday Inn Hotel (the hotel) until 26 February 2015 when he was dismissed following disciplinary proceedings. Following alleged acts of misconduct the appellant was charged in terms of category 5 offence 2 of the respondent’s Code of Conduct. The charge being any conduct or omission inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of his/her employment. The basis of the charge were three conducts. According to respondent following a tip off that fraudulent activities were taking place at the hotel through connivance of supervisors, cashiers and waiters specifically by way of... More