This is an appeal against an arbitral award which was made in favour of the respondent employees. Facts of the matter are that respondents who are in the appellant’s employ went for a period of time without receiving their salaries and allowances as per the industry code of conduct. They are all employed as long distant vehicle drivers by the appellant. Their matter went for conciliation where a certificate of no settlement was issued after the parties failed to reach an agreement. More
Respondent was in the employ of the appellant as chemicals handler. It is alleged that he took some chemical with the intention of taking out of the company premises. When he discovered that he could not possibly succeed in this endeavour, it is alleged that he spilt the chemical into a hedge close by and approached the security check-point with the empty container which he alleged he wanted to use to collect some water. The respondent was brought before a disciplinary committee which found him guilty and recommended his dismissal. The respondent took his matter to the Labour Officer and... More
This is an application for quantification of damages. The application which has been filed in terms of Rule 14 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017 is filed pursuant to a court order issued in this court under reference LC/H/444/22 on 7th July,2022. In the order the court directed as follows;
“1. The application for review be and is hereby granted.
2. The 2nd Respondent’s Ruling dated 28 January 2022 purporting to convict and dismiss 1st Applicant from employ of the 1st Respondent be and is hereby set aside.
3. The 2nd Respondent’s Ruling dated 28th January 2022 purporting to convict... More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in terms of section 92 F (2) of the Labour Act (Chapter 28:01).
Applicant’s prospective grounds of appeal are couched as follows;
1. The court a quo erred in concluding that the applicant made an admission during the hearing proceedings that the figures were not exact where in actual fact a query was raised disputing the correctness of the minutes.
2. The court a quo erred in making a decision that the evidence was sufficient whereas the evidence which was relied upon was drawn from CCTV which was... More
