At the hearing of this matter I denied respondent the indulgence to file a notice of response belatedly. The matter proceeded in terms of Rule 22 (b) (i). The appeal was granted and the arbitral award was set aside. The following are the reasons for that decision. More
Respondent was employed by Appellant. Respondent’s contract was allegedly unprocedurally terminated and the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator found in Respondent’s favour by ordering reinstatement. Appellant was however uncomfortable with reinstating Respondent and requested the arbitrator to proceed with quantification of damages in lieu of reinstatement. The arbitrator proceeded to do this and Appellant is dissatisfied and has approached this Court on appeal. More
Appellant worked for Respondent as a teacher. He was charged with various acts of misconduct. The main offence was improper association with a female pupil at his school. A hearing was conducted. He was found guilty and then dismissed from employment. He has appealed to this Court against the dismissal. More
The Applicant in casu who had been represented throughout but was now appearing as a self actor explained the extent of delay and the reasons thereof. He submitted that the extent of delay being 3 months was a short period of delay. He had to wait for 3 months from the date of receipt of the quantification award due to discussions that were ongoing between the parties. He was also short of funds and could not secure the services of a legal practitioner. Upon retaining the services of counsel he had then filed the present application for condonation of late... More
