This matter makes very sad listening as it has dragged to and from unnecessarily with at one point in time the court being invited to preside over an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. It is a matter where the court will refer to the parties as employee and employer for ease of reference and to avoid confusing the record since either party has at one time or other held inter chargeable applicant/appellant/respondent positions: More
This is an appeal against the respondent’s decision, dismissing appellant from employment on a charge of fraud.
The brief facts are that appellant was employed by the respondent as a loss control assistant. Her duties involved minimising the exposure of respondent to losses. On 26 September 2012 appellant applied for educational assistance for her child,Result, in the sum of $225. The sum was for third term of 2012. Appellant attached an invoice from the school for $225. A visit by the respondent at the school showed that third term fees were $75.00. The sum of $225 included fees for Baison... More
Applicant applied to this Court for condonation of late noting of appeal. Respondent opposed the application. At the onset of oral argument Respondent raised a point in limine. The point was that the relief sought was incompetent on the grounds that the Court is not empowered to grant such relief. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Respondent Health Services Board which upheld the Appellant’s dismissal on charges of ferrying unauthorized passengers in the Respondent’s bus.
The brief facts of the case are that: Appellant who was employed as a driver by the Respondent was seen by his superiors on 4 June 2011 ferrying unauthorized passengers in a bus belonging to the Respondent and clearly marked so. More
