The appellant was employed by respondent as a Lecturer at Belvedere Technical Teachers’ College. Following allegations that appellant conducted income generating projects using respondent’s resources but failed to account for the money he received, he was charged on five (5) counts. Three of the charges related to the income generating projects, the fourth charge was for using an unofficial receipt book to receipt the money he received and the fifth charge was for receiving the said money when it was not in line with his duties as a lecturer. He was found liable and dismissed. More
The appellant was employed as an accountant by the respondent’s engineering division.
He was arraigned before a disciplinary committee for acts of misconduct. He was found guilty of unsatisfactory work performance. He was dismissed.
This appeal is against the decision to find him guilty and to dismiss him. But in heads of argument filed in appellant’s behalf, the issue of conviction is not argued it may be that the appellant had decided to abandon it and merely base his appeal on challenging the penalty imposed. More
This is an application for condonation of late filing an application for review. In order for an application of this nature to succeed, the application must show:
a. the extent of the delay
b. a reasonable explanation for the delay.
c. prospects of success should the matter go on review.
See ChigovanyikavDairiboard Zimbabwe Ltd & Anor SC 121/04
And as far as review matters before this court are concerned, they should satisfy the requirements of section 92 EE, of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (the Act). The section provides that the grounds on which a matter is brought on review... More
The appellant was employed as a Senior Accountant in the Department of Research and Specialist Services under Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisation Irrigation Development. He was initially discharged from service in March 2009 following a disciplinary hearing. After an appeal to the Labour Court the decision of Public Service Commission was set aside. The respondent was directed to reinstate appellant and conduct a re-hearing. He was on 26 March 2012 again discharged from service after he was found guilty of an act of misconduct in terms of section 44 (2) (a) of the Public Service Regulations 2000 as read with paragraphs... More
