This is an appeal against an arbitral award.
The appellant had a business contract with International Organization for Migration (IOM) to provide catering and cleaning services. To facilitate execution of such contract, the appellant employed the respondents who carried out the services. They were employed for the period September 2011 to December 2013 as general workers. When the employment relationship was terminated, the respondents lodged a claim for three months’ notice pay each. Their salaries had been $150-00 each. More
Appellant worked for Respondent as a Truck Driver. He was charged with misconduct. A hearing was held. On 19 December 2013 a disciplinary committee (DC) found him not guilty. The complainant appealed. On
14 January 2014 Respondent’s Managing Director (MD) allowed the appeal. He set aside the determination of the DC and proceeded to dismiss Appellant. The latter then appealed to this Court against his dismissal. The appeal raised both procedural and substantive issues. More
At the hearing of this matter Respondent raised a point in limine that Applicant had instituted parallel proceedings in the High Court under case number HC-5110/14. The said proceedings in the High Court were actually set down for 1600 hours on the same day. Respondent argued that Applicant was seeking before the High Court the same relief sought before this Court.
Mr. Mushoriwa denied that there were parallel proceedings in the High Court. He argued that the parties are different as the applicant before the High Court is Kadoma City Council. He also argued that the relief sought is different... More
The respondent filed a complaint of unlawful termination of his contract of employment and this was allegedly done without the applicant following any procedures. The appellant’s version of what transpired is very different. It alleges that the
employee went absent without official leave in June 2020. The appellant
denies ever terminating the respondent’s contract of employment. More
At the onset of oral argument, the respondent withdrew her objection to the appellant’s Supplementary Grounds of Appeal. These concisely set out the appellant’s case as follows: More
