This is an appeal from a decision of a labour officer.
At the hearing of the matter before me, a point in imine was taken by the respondent who argued that the matter was never improperly before the arbitrator.
Reliance for this proposition was placed on the provisions of 101 (5) of the Act which provides as follows;
“notwithstanding this part, but subject to subsection (6), no labour officer shall intervene in any dispute or matter which is or is liable to be the subject of proceedings under an employment code, nor shall he intervene in any such proceedings.” More
This is an appeal against the dismissal of Appellant from the Respondent’s employ. Before the appeal could be argued, a preliminary issue was raised on behalf of the respondent. The issue raised is that grounds of appeal 1 to 6 and 8 do not raise points of law. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that these grounds are not properly before the court. The respondent also submitted that there has not been an allegation that there was a misdirection on the part of respondent. Authorities were cited in support of this submission. More
This matter was set down as an application for interim relief that is to have the arbitral award made in favour of the respondentemployees suspended pending the appeal noted by the applicantemployer. Judgment was reserved on the understanding that before the reserved date parties would file with the court further submissions on issues they felt needed further clarification. When such was not forthcoming the court proceeded as prayed for by the parties that judgment could be arrived at based on the papers filed of record.
The main contention in this matter is that the employer is of the view that... More
The applicant applied for condonation of late filing of application for the review of two arbitration awards. The respondent opposed the application. I will deal with the matter under the subtitles “Delay” and “Prospects.”
Delay
The first award is dated 5th November 2013.
The second award is dated 22nd October 2014.
This application is dated 2nd December 2015.
Thus in respect of the first award the delay is two years. Whilst for the second award it is one year. I consider such delays as inordinate. A reasonable explanation is required for such delay. The explanation given was that the parties... More
This judgment is about a matter where a rule nisi was granted on
18 February 2014 in applicant’s favour and made returnable on
26 February 2014. On the 26 February 2014 the respondent was supposed to come and show cause why the rule nisi of 18 February 2014 should not be confirmed. More
