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 The application filed under LC/H/REV/42/20 be and is hereby withdrawn.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
Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a Human Resources Officer. He was charged with “Falsification of records or any document whether of a personal nature or otherwise.” The Hearing Officer found him guilty and recommended his dismissal. He appealed to the Grievance and Disciplinary Committee which was deadlocked as to what penalty to impose on the Appellant. The matter was referred to NEC Appeals Board which recommended his dismissal. Appellant is not satisfied with the decision of the NEC Appeals Board and has approached this Court. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Managing Director of the Respondent to uphold the decision of the disciplinary committee.
Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a driver. On 9 December 2013 Appellant is alleged to have sent two security guards to go and look for a buyer of fuel. It is alleged the two went and came back with Mr.TendaiGutsa in his vehicle. It is also alleged that they drove into the depot and were noticed by private investigators. The private investigators closed the gate. Mr.Gutsa tried to drive out but was blocked. The private investigators... More
On 24 July, 2012, the Appellant’s Legal Practitioner applied for a postponement saying he had just been engaged and he needed time to take instructions and file relevant papers. The Respondent’s representative opposed the application and said this was a delaying tactic by the Appellant who has always been aware of the case and should have sought counsel earlier. He said the Respondent was being prejudiced by the delay. After hearing arguments, the Court granted the postponement but ruled that this would be the last postponement at the instance of the Appellant. More
