This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against a judgment of this court handed down on 4 October, 2019.
The judgment allowed the application for confirmation of the 1st Respondent’s draft ruling which ruling was made in favour of 2nd to 4th Respondent. The ruling is provided for under Section 93 (5a) (b) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01] (the Act). More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down on 28 November 2014, which upheld the dismissal of the appellant from the respondent’s employment. More
This is an application for condonation for the late filing of an application for review. Brief background
The applicant was employed as a security guard by the respondent. His job responsibilities
included the securing of company premises and all of the respondent’s property. Allegations of theft were raised by the respondent against the applicant. It was alleged that the applicant, acting in connivance with one Kwainonaya (a fellow employee) stole gold ore from the respondent’s property. He pleaded not guilty but was found guilty and dismissed. More
Most of the facts in this matter are common cause. Respondent was in the employ of the appellant. Following allegations of misconduct, respondent was suspended by the appellant. No disciplinary hearing was held resulting in the respondent being called back to work. Respondent was re-suspended on 21 March 2011. An attempt was made to hold a disciplinary hearing but this was not concluded. The respondent took the matter to the Labour Officer and the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator found the respondent guilty on the one charge and not guilty on the other. Further, the arbitrator ordered payment... More
Respondent faced allegations of misconduct and a hearing was given. Meanwhile, Respondent attended at a Doctor’s rooms and the Doctor instructed that she take a rest. This was communicated to the Respondent through the Matron who was a senior supervisor at Respondent’s work-station. Meanwhile, Respondent’s representatives approached the Respondent with a view to having the matter postponed to a further date for a hearing. This was not entertained by the Hearing Officer who ruled that the matter was to proceed. The matter was heard in Respondent’s absence. Respondent made an application for review to this Court. Both parties filed submissions... More
