Mr V. Mapepa for the Respondents applied that the matter be stood down to 1100 hours to enable the Legal Practitioner representing Respondents to avail herself at Court. Mr Mapepa submitted that such Legal Practitioner was attending a Pre – Trial conference at the High Court. No evidence was tendered in support of such submissions. Let me warn all legal practitioners to start respecting this court as a superior court. Most lawyers believe they can simply get a file from a fellow colleague and come before this court to inform this court to either postpone or stand down a matter. More
This is an appeal against an award that quantified the damages due to the respondents. The appellant had on 6 November 2014 advised the arbitrator that even though respondents were seeking reinstatement on the basis that their dismissal was unlawful or alternatively the payment of damages and terminal benefits, reinstatement was no longer on option. The quantification proceedings were subsequently held and an award was issued on 18 May 2015. On 4 June 2015 the appellant noted this appeal. The grounds of appeal span over three pages and they number up to 13. The bone of contention are the entitlements... More
This is an appeal against the decision of Honourable Arbitrator J Ndomene dated 5 September 2018. The arbitrator’s findings were that,
(i) The claim for non payment had not prescribed.
(ii) The claim for underpayment be granted.
The brief background of the matter is that some of the Respondents were employed by the Appellant as Loss Control Assistants and others as Messengers. When parties appeared before the arbitrator they made the following submissions. More
Appellant employed the respondent. Respondent’s contract of employment was terminated by the giving of three months’ notice. Respondent was aggrieved by this turn of events and the matter ended up in arbitration. The arbitrator ordered respondent’s reinstatement after making a finding that the termination was unlawful. Appellant is contesting the finding of the arbitrator. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award granting rescission of a default judgment, and directing that submissions be filed for the matter to be heard on the merits. What is peculiar about this application is that it is emanating from the party who sought, and was granted, rescission of the default judgment. It is not coming from the party who opposed the application for rescission of judgment. More
