Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment as a Revenue Officer by Respondent. The appeal was made in terms of Section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
At the onset of oral argument in this Court, the Respondent raised 2 (two) points in limine which the Applicant opposed. The points shall be dealt with ad seriatim. More
Applicant was employed by Respondent as an Environmental Health Technician and was dismissed from employment following a disciplinary hearing on the 16th of January 2013 with effect from the 12th December 2011.
Applicant filed an appeal with this Court on the 19th of February 2013 against his dismissal. He has proceeded to file an Urgent Chamber Application wherein he prays for reinstatement, the same prayer in his appeal. In other words, Applicant is actually applying that his appeal be heard before the others before his. More
The court allowed the appeal in this matter in default of the respondent’s filing of a response in time and not explaining to the court’s satisfaction why it so defaulted. This judgment sets out the full reasons why the court decided as it did to hand down the said default judgment.
The background to the matter is that the appellant employee noted his appeal with the Labour Court on 12 February 2015. On that same date the Registrar of the Labour Court invited the respondent to file its response to the appeal. The respondent received the request on 13 February... More
The appeal was noted in terms of Section 51 of the Public Service Regulations, Statutory Instrument I of 2000against a determination of the Disciplinary Authority of Judicial Service Commission handed down on 27 October 2011 which determination found the Appellant guilty of ‘Any act or omission inconsistent with prejudicial to the discharge of official duties including abuse of authority” and imposed a dismissal penalty with effect from 18 August 2011. More
