At the onset of oral argument in this Court both parties raised points in limine.
Respondent
Respondent raised a single point to the effect that there were no valid grounds for review. More
Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The appeal is provided for in terms of section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. More
On 12TH September 2012 this Court made an order by consent in terms of which Respondent was ordered to pay Applicant back-pay and benefits together with damages in lieu of reinstatement. The figures were to be either agreed by the parties or assessed by this Court. The parties failed to agree on the figures resulting in this application for assessment. Both parties filed papers setting out their calculations and submissions. More
Appellant was in respondent’s employ as a stock controller. For a charge under category SUB-STANDARD PERFORMANCE, Appellant was charged with and found guilty of negligence for which a penalty of dismissal was imposed.
The basis of the charge was that, on the 1st of July, 2019 while on day shift, appellant dispatched a Bindura bound truck with trailer number 6849 loaded with 18 pallets of Chibuku super yet the recorded out load was 17 pallets of Chibuku super. As a stockcontroller, appellant was supposed to physically check andverify the quantities in each and every truck that comes in and goes... More
This is an application for review against the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the 2nd Respondent on the 13th and the 16th of December 2024. The application is brought in terms of section 92 EE of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] More
