This is an application for condonation of late filing and extension of time within which to file an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against a judgment of this court handed down on 18 September 2015. In terms of Rule 36 of S.I. 59/06, an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is to be made within 30 days from the date of the decision sought to be appealed against. Applicant avers that he only became aware of the judgment on 15 December 2015. The present application was filed on 17 December 2015. More
The record of this matter was placed before me in chambers for consideration. It is an application for interim relief purportedly made in terms of section 92 E subsection (3) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01]. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Appeals Authority of respondent which confirmed a guilty verdict and dismissal in respect of Appellant. More
Respondents were in the employ of the Appellant in various capacities. The Respondents approached the Appellant with the intention of having their employment terminated on the basis
1
of ill-health. The Respondents had contracted different illnesses during the course of their employment with the Appellant. The Appellant was supposed to apply for the termination of this employment in terms of the Group Life Assurance Scheme. The provision was that where medical evidence was vailed showing that a member was permanently medically incapable of performing his/her duties, that employee would be entitled to retire prior to the normal age of retirement.... More
The applicant employed the respondent before charging him with acts of misconduct, finding him guilty and dismissing him from employment.
The respondent was aggrieved with the decision to find him guilty and to dismiss him. He referred the matter to the Labour Court on review. The main grievance raised by the respondent in the review application was that the presiding officer of the disciplinary committee had misdirected himself when he sought to clarify certain issues with the complaint and consulted and clarified the issues in private with the complaint outside the disciplinary proceedings. The respondent argued that his right to... More
