Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse Court Judgements by court
This matter was set down as an appeal to be heard on 8 June 2016. On that date the court observed that there was no notice of response on file. It was agreed between the parties that the matter be postponed sine die to allow for the filing of the notice of response. On 28 June 2016 the response was filed but the matter did not progress any further thereafter. The impression created by the lack of prosecution of the matter to its conclusion is that the matter was abandoned. That has prompted this court to dispose of the matter... More

At the onset of oral argument in this Court Respondent raised a point in limine which Applicant opposed. The respondent argued that the application is invalid for reliance on an incompetent draft order. The impugned draft order reads; “It is ordered that 1.Application for condonation for failure to comply with Rule 21(1) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017 and an extension within which to comply with the provisions of Rule 21(1) be and is hereby granted. 2.Applicant’s application for reinstatement under case number LC/H/899/22 be heard by the court. More

This is an appeal against the decision of an Appeals Committee issued on 3 October 2017, which upheld the appellant’s dismissal from the respondent’s employment. The facts forming the background to the matter are that the appellant was employed by the respondent as Finance and Administration Officer. She was responsible for, among other duties, the custody, recording, and issuing of fuel coupons for the respondent’s vehicle fleet. It is alleged that during the period 9 February 2015 to 12 June 2017, diesel coupons amounting to 660 litres could not be accounted for. It is also alleged that during the period... More

This is an appeal against the decision of the arbitrator where he ruled that appellant had resigned from her employment with respondent hence was not entitled to payment of notice pay or retrenchment package. The background to the matter is that appellant who was in the respondent’s employ wrote on 4 April 2014 to respondent resigning from her job. She however wrote another letter on 7 April 2014 cancelling her resignation. The respondent accepted her resignation and paid her what was due to her. She was irked by the fact that respondent did not consider the withdrawal of the first... More

Appellant worked for Respondent as a Security Guard. She was charged with misconduct (gross incompetence or inefficiency). A hearing was held. The disciplinary authority found her guilty and recommended her dismissal. Appellant appealed. The Mine Manager dismissed the appeal. Appellant then appealed to this Court in terms of Section 92 D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. Respondent opposed the appeal. More