Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse Court Judgements by court
Halwick Investments (Pvt) Ltd the employer is seeking leave to appeal against the order which struck off its matter from the roll. Samson Geti the employee is opposed to the grant of the leave relief. Sadly Mr Geti has not complied with the rules of court by not filing heads of argument. He is thus barred in the matter. He however seeks from the bar that the bar operating against him be uplifted. He cites administration glitches as the excuse for his non compliance. More

This is an application for leave to appeal against the decision of the labour court where it ruled that the employer’s notice of opposition was bad at law on account of the fact that there was no formal board resolution authorising the deponent to the opposing affidavit to depose to facts on behalf of the employer and that the legal practitioners for the employer had not filed an assumption of agency. More

This matter was placed before me as an application for review. It was filed pursuant to Rule 14 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. The application is opposed. The Respondent party was directed by the Court on the date of hearing, and duly filed its Notice of Response and Heads of Argument on the 15 June, 2022. The parties thereafter requested the court to hand down its judgment based on their written submissions. More

The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as the Chief Assayer. Part of his duties included keeping safe and secure samples received in the assay laboratory from various mines. It was also not in dispute that a spare key to the safe had been missing for in excess of seventeen years and had never been found. On the 10th of May, 2012 the Appellant in the company of two others, opened the safe and discovered that nine gold bullion samples were missing. The Appellant had been asked to release the gold bullion samples in question. The Appellant had no idea... More

It was Appellant’s submission that the notice of appeal was filed and served on the Respondent on the 15th October, 2015. Respondent was required, in terms of the Rules to file his response within 14 days to wit by the 4th November, 2015. Respondent filed his response on the 6th November, 2015 i.e. 2 days out of time. Respondent did not apply for condonation of late filing of the response neither did he give an explanation for the late filing. More