Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse Court Judgements by court
This is an appeal against an arbitral award in terms of which it was ordered that the dispute between the appellant and the respondent be heard de novo. More

Appellant worked for Respondent as a Security Officer. On 30th June 2015 he was dismissed from employment for misconduct. He appealed against the dismissal to Respondent’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO). By letter dated 9th July 2015 the CEO dismissed the appeal. Appellant then appealed to this Court. Respondent opposed the appeal. More

This is an application for the late filing of an application for review. Following a determination in the labour dispute between the employer and the employee the employee breached the legal requirement pertaining to his filing of a review application. It is against this background that the employee seeks to have this court condone his breach and grant him a chance to be heard in his review matter. The employer is opposed to the grant of such condonation and persists that this court decline such indulgence. More

Respondent filed an application for rescission of judgment in the name of its Human Resources Manager on the 9 September 2013. Applicant duly filed its response to that application on the 8 January 2014 and served it on respondent’s legal practitioners of record in the application for quantification which is also before this court. The application for rescission of judgment has not been set down for hearing in terms of Rule 21 of this Court’s Rules S.I. 59 of 2006. More

d) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. The factual background to the matter is as follows: The applicant was employed by the respondent as a Sales and Marketing Manager. The applicant fell ill and had to proceed on statutory sick leave. After the expiry of the statutory leave days, a qualified medical practitioner having recommended retirement on medical grounds, the applicant appeared before the ZESA Medical Board. He appeared on two separate occasions before the Board. What happened at the Medical Board is subject to different interpretations by both parties. The applicant alleges that on the two separate occasions the... More