1. That the Notice of Response is fatally defective for want of form:
Rule 19(2) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017 requires a party to file his response in the prescribed form called LC2. Appellant alleged that the Response in casu does not comply with the requirement. A comparison of the response and Form LC 2 shows that the only difference is absence of the inscription “LC2” at the top right corner. The inscription is meant to identify the forms in the Rules.
It is not necessary that a party’s response in their pleadings be inscribed by the Form’s notation.... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award issued by Honourable K Segula on 1 August 2013. The arbitral award upheld the decision of the respondent’s Disciplinary Committee which found the appellant guilty of misconduct and imposed a penalty of dismissal. More
The relevant facts which are common cause are that the Respondent was offered the job post of Sales Manager on the 15th of March 2012. This was after he had been interviewed on the 2nd of March 2012. The (contract) letter indicated that if he had any queries regarding any of the conditions laid down in the letter of appointment the Appellant should not hesitate to contact the Directors who would clarify the issues. The letter also invited the Respondent to sign in acceptance if he was satisfied with the terms and conditions therein. All communication pertaining to the negotiations... More
On 29th June 2015 at Marondera Arbitrator E. Mudzengerere issued an arbitration award. He ordered Appellant to reinstate Respondents’ employment or pay them damages in lieu of reinstatement. Appellant then appealed to this Court against the award. Respondents opposed the appeal. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Appeal authority which confirmed the appellant’s dismissal from the respondent’s employment on the 10th of October 2012. More
