Applicants applied to this Court for the reinstatement of an abandoned matter. The application is provided for by Rule 36 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application. 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
The appellants were employed in various capacities. They were retrenched on 28 July 2021. The appellants challenged the retrenchment on the basis that the retrenchment process was unlawful as they were retrenched by a non-existent entity. Martindale Catholic Primary School which retrenched them was not their employer and it had no right to retrench them. Martindale Primary School was registered under the name; Little Children of our Blessed Lady Sisters. It was argued that Little Children of our Blessed Lady Sisters ought to have retrenched them and not Martindale Catholic Primary School. More
At the onset of the review application the applicant raised the point in limine stating that there is no opposition to the review application on account of the fact that the opposing affidavit was deposed to by a person who did not file with the court a board resolution indicating that he is authorised to depose to the affidavit. More
