Appellant was charged with and found guilty of conduct inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of service. The facts that gave rise to this charge were that, Appellant failed to supervise his subordinates resulting in two of his subordinates defrauding the Respondent. He failed to supervise the updating of the Fund’s cash books and reconciliation of all bank statements on a monthly basis. He also failed to ensure compliance with set control procedures. More
On the 30th January, 2013 this Court dealt with an application for quantification of damages, the judgment which was delivered on the 2nd August, 2013. More
This is an application for quantification of damages following this court’s ruling that ;
“the Respondent be and is hereby ordered to reinstate the Appellant with no loss of salary and benefits with effect from date of dismissal
Or
In the event that reinstatement is no longer possible the Respondent be and is hereby ordered to pay the Appellant damages as agreed between the parties in lieu of reinstatement. Should parties fail to agree either party is free to approach the court for quantification “ More
On 25 January 2024, the parties appeared before me in an application for rescission of a default judgement. I dismissed the application. The applicant requested that I give reasons for my order and these are they.
Background facts
the applicant employed the respondent before preferring charges of misconduct against him. He was charged and found guilty and dismissed from employment. The respondent was aggrieved with the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings the respondent noted an appeal to the labour court. This was on 27 April 2023. The notice of appeal was served on the applicant’s office on 4 May 2023 More
