The background of this matter is that on 1 September 2010 the Appellant signed a contract of employment with the respondent. He was employed as the Resident director. He was to direct and supervise company policy on a day to day basis. The respondent’s contract was of unlimited. duration. The respondent was entitled to various benefits some of which were not availed to him until he left service in July 2012. Respondent claims that appellant owed him $277 000,00 being outstanding arrears and benefits. The respondent then referred the labour dispute for conciliation. More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment of this court that was granted by this court under case number LC/H/12/16. This court dismissed the appeal against the award by Honourable Arbitrator Shawatu that was handed down on 13 June 2015. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Disciplinary Committee which dismissed the Appellant on grounds of contravening the Respondent’s Code of Conduct. In particular, it was alleged that the Appellant stole timber from her workplace.
Facts of the case are that the Appellant was employed by the Respondent Company as a sales person. She is said to have in the first count failed to notify her superiors timeously of the fact that customers’ timber which had been bought from the Respondent had gone missing in transit to the customer. In respect of the second count she was said... More
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
