This is an application for quantification of damages following this Court’s order of reinstatement in applicant’s favour which confirmed an earlier arbitral award. More
Applicant employee approached this court on 3 review grounds namely
1. Improper constitution of disciplinary Committee
2.1 Grossly irregular disciplinary proceedings based on fact that done after matter
referred to a labour officer per Sec 101(6) of the labour Act.
2.2 Denial of legal representation
3) Grossly unreasonable findings without evidence.
The Chairperson of the disciplinary Committee was sued in his official capacity so on the date of the review hearing only the employee and the employer appeared to argue the matter. The employer took points in limine vis grounds 2.1, 2.2, and 3 saying that these were not review... More
This matter was originally set to be heard on 01 April 2020. Due to the onslaught of the CORONAVIRUS pandemic, the Chief Justice issued an instruction to the effect that courts would only deal with very urgent matters and the rest had to be postponed. This was in order to avoid unnecessary contaminations and curb infections. On the date of the hearing, applicants’ legal practitioners were contacted telephonically and informed of the position. It was also suggested to them that,
with their consent, the matter could be determined on the merits if they were satisfied that the documents they had... More
Please take note that the order handed down on the 10th of November, 2023 under reference LC/H/ORD/878/23 carries the following errors and omissions;
i. The Applicant was not in default but rather the Respondent was the one who was in default therefore the representative for the Applicant shall be amended from “in default” to “Mr S. Mwandiwanza.” (Legal Practitioner)
ii. The legal practitioner’s name who appeared for the Applicant on 1 November (the date of the hearing) was misspelt as “Mr.S Mwandiwanzira” it is corrected to read as ‘Mr.S.Mwandiwanza’. More
Applicant applied to this Court for the rescission of default judgment in terms of section 92(1)a of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 as read with Rule 40 of the Labour Court Rules S.I. 150/17. Respondents opposed the application. More
