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
This is an appeal against the decision of an Appeals Committee issued on 3 October 2017, which upheld the appellant’s dismissal from the respondent’s employment.
The facts forming the background to the matter are that the appellant was employed by the respondent as Finance and Administration Officer. She was responsible for, among other duties, the custody, recording, and issuing of fuel coupons for the respondent’s vehicle fleet. It is alleged that during the period 9 February 2015 to 12 June 2017, diesel coupons amounting to 660 litres could not be accounted for. It is also alleged that during the period... More
