Electronic Court judgements

Browse Court Judgements by court

This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent employer finding the appellant employee guilty of conduct inconsistent with his employment and penalizing him with dismissal. The appellant raises 9 grounds of appeal but they all culminate into a single appeal ground that the appellant is not happy with the penalty which was meted out on him. He argues that he should have received a lower penalty taking into account that the stolen gun was not stolen in his custody but in the custody of another officer one who was well trained to use the gum and who he... More

This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court at the instance of the applicant employee. This application is made pursuant to this court’s judgment of 10 July 2015 where it confirmed the arbitrator’s decision where he had ruled that the applicant employee could not have his appeal dealt with out of time as the model code does not provide condonation provisions to be used in cases where a party seeks relief out of time. The basis for the instant leave to appeal application is that this court erred on a point of law by agreeing with... More

Appellant approached this Court on appeal against an arbitral award basically on two grounds. More

This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court by Parks and Wildlife Management (Applicant). The background of this matter which resulted in this application is that:- • On the 10th December, 2012 Applicant (then Appellant) filed a notice of appeal to this Court against an arbitral award. The case No. is LC/H/990/12. • On the same date the Registrar of this Court served a notice of response in LC2 Form to Respondent’s legal practitioners of record Manase and Manase calling upon Respondent to file his response to the appeal. • On the 18th December, 2012 Respondent... More

This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent’s Appeals Committee, which upheld the dismissal of the appellant from employment by the Staff Disciplinary Committee (Disciplinary Committee). The brief facts of the matter are that the appellant was employed by the respondent as a driver. In the course of his duties, he drove the respondent’s staff bus on 28 June 2020. It is alleged that about 120 litres of diesel was siphoned from the bus during the period the appellant had custody of the bus. As a consequence, the appellant was charged with misconduct, under the respondent’s code of... More