This is an appeal against the decision of the designated agent who dismissed appellant’s claim for alleged non - payment of allowances.
The background to the matter is that the respondent Bantwana engaged the appellant as a result based management intern from March to August 2023. Bantwana stated in the offer letter that it would pay Robert the employee $300 USD per month less NSSA and tax amounts. At the expiration of the contract Robert sought to recover from Bantwana subsistence allowances for the 143 days that he was in Bantwana’s employ. Bantwana refused to pay him that but offered... More
This is an application for review and an appeal against the decision of the Respondent’s Company’s appeals Board which confirmed the Appellant/Applicant’s dismissal following allegations of wilful disobedience to a lawful order and being absent from work for more than 5 days in a year without lawful excuse. More
Appellant was the chairman of the Workers Committee (WC) of Chemplex Holdings Ltd and its subsidiaries including respondent. He also worked for respondent as a machine operator. Respondent carried out an exercise to avoid retrenchment. One of the measures considered was putting employees on short time. The employees were aggrieved by the measures. They appealed to this court under reference LC/H/278/13. They were represented by their trade union (tu). More
On the date of the hearing the Applicant made an application for withdrawal with costs on an ordinary scale. The Respondent having objected the court handed down an extempore ruling. Thereafter an order as follows was granted.
“IT IS ORDERED THAT
1. The application filed under LC/H/REV/42/20 be and is hereby withdrawn.
2. The Applicant shall pay costs on a higher scale.“ More
The basis for the application is that the applicant failed to apply for leave on time because he got to know of the appeal judgment later than the hand down date of the same. He also argues that he has a bona fide case on the merits of his leave application because he is satisfied that the essential elements of the theft which saw him lose his job were not canvassed properly. He therefore believes that the Supreme Court can find that no theft took place but that only a misunderstanding between him and the guards ensued when he was... More
