This is an application for condonation of late filing of an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. On 29 May 2015 this court upheld a point in limine that the grounds of appeal in case number LC/H/1056/14 are attacking factual findings without alleging that the findings are grossly irregular amounting to a misdirection in law. Consequently I dismissed the appeal with costs. On 27 July 2015 the present application was filed. The applicant alleges that the judgment of 29 may 2015 was not brought to her attention on time as it was only delivered to her on... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award made in favour of the respondents.
The three respondents were employed by the appellant in different capacities on fixed term contracts of one month at a time. The contracts were continuously renewed to the extent that the first respondent worked for appellant for a period of 7 years 6 months, the second respondent worked for 1 year 3 months and the third respondent worked for 1 year 7 months. On
30 September 2010 the three respondents were advised by the appellant orally after work not to report for duty the following day... More
The brief history of this matter is that the respondents were employed by the appellant. It is alleged that the respondents made a report at Mega Park and when an audit report was carried out the report was found to be false. They were suspended from duty on 4 November 2010 on allegations of making a false report. A disciplinary hearing was conducted and the respondents were dismissed from work. More
Following the dismissal of its postponement application the appellant was granted leave by the court to address it on the bar operating against it vis filing of heads of argument. After oral submissions on that aspect the court advised the parties that they will hear of the court decision from the clerk of court. More
The appellant employed the respondent as a general hand for 43 years until he retired in 2013.
While he was employed, both the employer and the employee contributed towards a pension fund in behalf of the respondent with Old Mutual.
Following his retirement, he was duly paid his pension benefits by Old Mutual in terms of the fund that he had contributed to. More
