Appellant filed his notice of appeal on the 2nd August 2022. Respondent filed its notice of response on 12th August 2022. Then appellant filed an answering affidavit on the 24th August 2022. Respondent argued that the answer was improperly filed. Rule 19 of the Labour Court Rules SI. 150/17 provides for an appeal and response thereto. It does not provide for an answering affidavit by the appellant. On that basis the answer was improperly filed. Appellant sought to get around this hurdle by seeking condonation by this Court. Indeed the Court can condone departure from the Rules in terms of... More
Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The appeal is provided for by section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. The grounds of appeal were initially two-fold. However upon challenge by respondent, this Court struck off the second ground. More
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
