Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a Mortuary Assistant. He is alleged to have received money and application forms from one Mrs. Mtandwa. These forms were for Mrs. Mtandwa’s relative who wanted to secure a vacancy as a student nurse. Appellant is alleged to have given the application forms and $200,00 to Mrs. Mokina for processing. Matters came to a head when this vacancy did not materialize and Mrs. Mtandwa made a report to the police. Appellant was brought before a Disciplinary Committee which recommended his dismissal. Appellant appealed to the Health Services Board which confirmed his dismissal. Appellant... More
This is an appeal against a determination of the disciplinary authority/hearing officer of the respondent.
The appellant was employed by the respondent and was responsible for the weighbridge when it was alleged that he had been collecting money from weighbridge customers and had converted some of the money to his own use on 30 July 2014. He was then charged in terms of section 4 (a) and (d) of Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006 being “any act of conduct or omission inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of his contract” and “theft or fraud” respectively More
The present appeal was noted against an arbitral award handed down on 8 August, 2013.
The appellant was employed by the respondent. She was engaged on the 1 June 2007 on the basis of a fixed five year contract which was renewable annually. The contract was due to terminate in December, 2012. In 2008 however due to economic and financial constraints the respondent decided to vary the employment contract from five year contract to a short term contract i.e one year fixed term which was renewable at respondent instance. More
Facts leading to this application as follows; -
Applicant who was in the respondent’s employment as a Nutritionist Stock Feed was suspended from employment on 26 February 2024 on allegations of engaging in conduct inconsistent with conditions of her employment and habitual and substantial neglect of duty in contravention of the Model Code. More
At the onset of oral argument in this Court, respondent raised two (2) points in limine which appellant opposed. The points shall be dealt with ad seriatim.
A. That the appeal is fatally defective for want of valid grounds of appeal:
B. That the relief sought is incompetent More
