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
This is an application for quantification of damages awarded to the applicant. Applicant had been dismissed from employment on 11 April 2014 following a disciplinary hearing on misconduct. After the dismissal applicant appealed to the Appeals Officer and the appeal was dismissed. Applicant further appealed to the National Employment Council for the Chemicals and Fertilizers Manufacturing Industry (NEC). The NEC Appeals Committee upheld the appeal and ordered respondent to reinstate applicant without loss of wages and benefits from the date of dismissal. In the alternative parties were to negotiate damages in lieu of reinstatement. In the event of failure to... More
The judgement was prepared in 2017. It was not handed down. I extend my sincere apologies to the parties for the delay. This is an appeal against on arbitral award handed down by Honourable S. Mugumbi on the 3rd of December, 2015. The operative part of which reads as follows;
“I therefore accordingly, dismiss the claims in toto. All claims must fail.
This will be my award”
The material background facts are as follows;
The Appellants were all employed by the Respondent in various capacities. They were all engaged on the basis of open-ended contracts i.e. contracts without the limit... More
The charges for which Appellant was found guilty and dismissed from Respondent’s employ were:
- Any act or conduct or omission inconsistent with express or implied conditions of the employee’s contract.
- Being dishonest in the performance of normal duties. More
