On 28th April 2015 the appellant filed an appeal in this Court. On 13th May 2015 the respondent filed a Response. The grounds of appeal were written in long hand as follows:
“Unfair treatment, unfair allegations resulting in an unfair dismissal from unfounded allegations.”
The terse grounds of appeal provoked a robust response by the respondent thus;
“In LimineGeneral Overview
There is no appeal before the Honourable Court. The general statements presented in the notice of appeal are broad and far reaching and, crucially, do not satisfy the legal test for grounds of appeal at law. They do not show... More
The appeal was referred tome for determination on the record in terms of Section 89 (2) (a) (i) of the Labour Act [Cap 28 : 01]. The matter was filed in July 2014 but has been lying idle due to failure on Appellant’s part to settle sheriff’s costs for services of Notice of Set-down. On the basis of the directive by the Senior Judge dated 3rd October, 2016 that all idle matters ready for set down be referred for determination on the record the above matter was referred to me. I proceed to determine the matter. More
Respondent was employed by the appellant as a barman. The allegations are that the respondent included a fake USD100.00 note in his daily takings which led to a disciplinary hearing. The disciplinary hearing recommended his dismissal. The matter was referred to conciliation and finally to arbitration. The Arbitrator found in favour of the respondent. More
This matter was set down as an appeal to be heard on 8 June 2016. On that date the court observed that there was no notice of response on file. It was agreed between the parties that the matter be postponed sine die to allow for the filing of the notice of response. On 28 June 2016 the response was filed but the matter did not progress any further thereafter. The impression created by the lack of prosecution of the matter to its conclusion is that the matter was abandoned. That has prompted this court to dispose of the matter... More
At the onset of oral argument in this Court Respondent raised a point in limine which Applicant opposed. The respondent argued that the application is invalid for reliance on an incompetent draft order. The impugned draft order reads;
“It is ordered that
1.Application for condonation for failure to comply with Rule 21(1) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017 and an extension within which to comply with the provisions of Rule 21(1) be and is hereby granted.
2.Applicant’s application for reinstatement under case number LC/H/899/22 be heard by the court. More
