This is an appeal against the decision that led to appellant’s dismissal from employment following allegations that he had given false information relating to duplicated bar code 106 which could have resulted in loss of the company’s roll of electric cable. More
This is an application for condonation of late filing of heads of argument.
The brief history of this matter is that respondent filed its appeal on the 16September 2011. Applicant then filed his notice of response on the
30 September 2011. The respondent then filed its heads of argument on the
7 June 2013. The matter failed to take off on the 11 December 2012 because respondent had not filed heads of argument. On the 11 June 2013 the matter was then postponed sine die to enable applicant’s legal practitioner to file heads of argument. On the 28 June 2013... More
This is an application for the review of the respondent’s disciplinary committee decision. Applicant raises 3 issues for review. The first one is that he was wrongly charged under the Tourism Industry Code instead of under the Procurement Act. Secondly he says that the Chairman did not have jurisdiction to hear his matter as he was biased on account of the fact that he was husband to applicant’s superior. Thirdly he argues that the complainant in the matter was his immediate supervisor and signatory to the procurement process now under challenge so he gave a biased account of the events... More
This is an application for the review of the respondent’s disciplinary committee decision. Applicant raises 3 issues for review. The first one is that he was wrongly charged under the Tourism Industry Code instead of under the Procurement Act. Secondly he says that the Chairman did not have jurisdiction to hear his matter as he was biased on account of the fact that he was husband to applicant’s superior. Thirdly he argues that the complainant in the matter was his immediate supervisor and signatory to the procurement process now under challenge so he gave a biased account of the events... More
This is an appeal against the arbitral award by Honourable J Mateko that was handed down on 4 September 2015. The appellants were employed by the respondent for a period of (9) nine years as security guards. They were then retired after reaching the age of 65 years. They then approached the arbitrator with the claim that they had been unfairly dismissed. The arbitrator dismissed their claim stating that termination was done fairly on retirement. More
