Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The facts of the case are aptly set out in Respondent’s Heads Of Argument as follows,
“On 01 May 2011 however LameckPhiri gave the keys to the safe containing money he had collected on 30 April 2011, to the Appellant who did banking for that day. The Appellant collected a total of
US$98 439 and R193 800. He put the money and banking documents in the same safe that contained Phiri’s money. No hand over take over was ever done between the two notwithstanding that huge sums of... More
On the 24th of June 2019 the respondents appeared in court represented by legal practitioners. At the end of the hearing the application was struck off in accordance with the admissions made by the parties through their laywers. Unfortunately the order was not typed until a follow up was made a year later on the 7th July 2020. On the 15th July the typed order was availed. More
Applicants applied to this Court for quantification of damages for loss of employment. 1st Respondent opposed the appeal.
The matter arises from the order issued by this Court on 24th October 2022. The order nullified the dismissal from of employment of applicants (employees) by the 1st respondent (employer) and remitted the matter to the employer for a rehearing within thirty (30) days. If the employer did not comply, it was ordered to reinstate the employees or pay them damages either agreed by the parties or assessed by this Court. More
The appellant was employed by the respondent as its Operations Director. He was also, for a period, appointed as the organisation’s Acting Managing Director. He was dismissed from the respondent’s employ following disciplinary proceedings for acts of misconduct which happened during the period that he was Acting Managing Director. He was charged with three counts for violating section 4 (a) of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct), Regulations Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006 (S.I. 15/06), that is
“any act of conduct or omission inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of his or her contract;” More
This is an application for review. Before the matter proceeded on merits four points in limine were raised. On the basis of the points in limine this court dismissed the application. More
