This is an application for condonation for late filing of an application for review.
Factual Background
The applicant who was employed by the 2nd respondent was charged with Habitual and substantial neglect of his duties in terms of section 4 (g) of Statutory Instrument 15/2006.
He was found guilty and dismissed. His internal appeals were not successful and the matter was eventually referred to a Labour Officer More
Applicant filed an application for condonation of the failure to file an appeal timeously under case number LC/H/157/23. On 13 June 2022, after hearing the parties, the Court proceeded to render an Ex Tempore Judgment on the same date dismissing the application. The Applicant proceeded to file an application for leave to appeal under Case Number LC/H/531/23. This matter was set down for hearing on 27 September 2023. However, Applicant was not in attendance. The application was struck off the off the roll. It is pertinent to note that after the judgment of 13 June 2022, Applicant’s representative requested for... More
This is an application in terms of section 92C of the Labour Act [Chapter28:01] (the Act). The applicant seeks to have this court vary a decision by another Judge of this court.
The background is that the applicant was employed by the respondent and was dismissed in June 2004. After following internal processes unsuccessfully, the applicant appealed against the decision to dismiss him to the Labour court in 2005. The applicant lost his appeal in the Labour court and decided to appeal to the Supreme court. The Supreme court struck offthe appeal from its roll on the basis that the... More
This is an appeal by the Appellant challenging his dismissal by the Respondent which dismissal was confirmed by the Respondent’s appeals board.
The basic facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows: Appellant was charged with willfully abusing the Respondent’s assets or alternatively conducting himself in a manner inconsistent with the conditions of his employment. In particular it was alleged that the Appellant abused the e-mail facility which ZIMRA, the Respondent had provided him with for business use. Contrary to expectation, he is said to have abused this e-mail facility by sending out to his friends and relatives pornographic... More
