This matter was set down so that a review application filed on behalf of the applicant could be heard. At the commencement of the hearing the legal practitioner on behalf of the respondent stood up to address the Court. The nature of the application was not immediately articulated in order for the Court to appreciate it. More
This is an application for condonation of late filing of an application for review. At the end of the hearing the application was dismissed. Reasons were to follow. These are they. In order for the application to succeed the court considers, among other things the following factors, namely,
1) the extend of the delay;
2) the explanation for the delay; and
3) Prospects of success should the matter be heard on the merits. More
The matter was set down in terms of rule 19(3)(a) of this court’s rules. At the time the appeal was filed Appellant was represented by Messrs Laita and Partners Legal Practitioners. Such Legal Practitioners were enjoined to file Appellant’s heads of argument upon receipt of a notice of response from the Respondent. They failed to do so. A notice of set down was sent to Appellant lawyers advising them of that day’s hearing. Appellant also confirmed that he informed his lawyers of record of the set down date. The lawyers informed Appellant that there would no longer be representing him... More
On the 17th January, 2014 Appellant noted an appeal with this court against an arbitral award. The Arbitrator had held that Appellant was not constructively dismissed. The Respondent had not committed any unfair labour practice by transferring Appellant to another department. The Respondent had simply exercised its discretion. More
