Parties failed to agree on quantum and the matter was therefore argued before me. However, when the matter was argued the matter took long with most of the time being spent on the cross examination of the applicant by the respondent’s legal practitioner. Some of the questions asked were to do with the size of a particular section of a hotel or hotels at which the applicant worked. I am not sure whether there was any benefit from that lengthy time of cross examination. I believe that when legal practitioners lead evidence and cross examine witnesses, they do so in... More
The appellant was employed as an internal guard a grade 2 position by the respondent in 2003. Appellant subsequently resigned in 2013. The position he held at the time of resignation forms the basis of this appeal. It is not in dispute that appellant was promoted to the position of Lance Corporal in 2007 and in 2008 he was promoted to the position of Corporal being a grade 6 position. The promotions were by way of letters from the managing director. According to appellant in the later part of 2008 appellant’s duties changed to that of security supervisor. The appellant’s... More
The background facts of this matter are that the Applicant was employed by the Respondent as a Forklift Driver. Allegations of misconduct were raised against him and he was found guilty by a Disciplinary Committee set up in terms of the relevant Code of Conduct. He appealed to the Appeals Committee which upheld the decision by the Disciplinary Committee More
CHIVIZHE, J;
The matter was placed before me as an application for quantification of damages pursuant to an order granted by this Court in case LC/H/705/13 which order dismissed respondent’s appeal and upheld an order by the NEC Appeals Committee dated 24th March 2014 which order directing reinstatement. The Court order issued by the Labour Court did not award damages as an alternative for reinstatement. This was clearly contrary to Section 89(2)(c)(iii) of the LabourAct [Cap 28:01] which requires that whenever the Court considers reinstatement as the more appropriate remedy and grants it the employer must still be given an... More
The applicants were employed by Martindale Catholic School in different capacities. Sometime in June 2021, the respondent purported to retrench the applicants allegedly without following lawful retrenchment procedures in terms of Section 12C (1)(a) (i) (ii) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (the Act). The applicants challenged their retrenchment arguing that the process was flawed. The respondent proceeded with the process regardless and paid the applicants their retrenchment packages. More
