This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The record was erroneously kept in the registry instead of it being referred for consideration of judgment. Hence while the matter was heard in October 2012, the judgment is only being considered in January 2013. The confusion regarding the movement of the record is regretted More
This is an application for rescission of judgment issued in default against the applicant on 15 April 2015.
The Respondent opposed the application and raised preliminary objections that:
1. The application is totally defective for non-compliance with the Rules of this court in that applicant has adopted an incorrect form and;
2. The application is out of time. More
This is an application for condonation of the late filing of a Notice of Appeal. It is which cause that the Applicant didn’t file an affidavit but his legal practitioner did this on his behalf. The first issues raised by Respondent’s counsel is that the legal practitioner, who de… to the Founding Affidavit could not appear on behalf of the Applicant as he assured the complexion of a witness. Mr Chipere attempted to play down the issue. However, it is quite clear that Mr Chipere having sworn to the Founding Affidavit would not proceed to appear on behalf of the... More
This is an application for Review. The question of jurisdiction and prescription have been raised on behalf of the applicant. The sole ground for review is therefore:
“Absence of jurisdiction on part of the Disciplinary Committee on the basis that the matter has prescribed.”
The matter is presently still pending before the respondents. This is so as the applicant raised a preliminary issue that the matter had prescribed and could therefore not be heard by the Disciplinary Committee as this would be in violation of s94 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (the Act).
The applicant was charged with the... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Hearing Officer finding the Appellant guilty of misconduct culminating in his dismissal from employment. The brief facts are that the Appellant was employed as the Acting Chief Executive Officer of Respondent. He also held the post of Head of Finance. This means that he held the two posts simultaneously. An audit was carried out following reports of misconduct. The audit report made certain recommendations amongst of which it was stated that Appellant had failed to discharge his duties both as Head of Finance and Acting Chief Executive Officer and the Board... More
