This judgment addresses applications for condonation for late filing of applications for review and appeal by 2 employees of Golden Valley Mine namely Shadreck Mkuwu in LC/H/278/23 and Godknows Dube LC/H/277/23. On account of the fact that the matters deal with the same subject and that the relief sought is the same the parties to the matters requested that both matters be consolidated and be decided as a single matter. In the result the court ordered by consent on 19 July 2023 that the 2 matters be consolidated. This judgment therefore addresses the matters in their consolidated form. The parties... More
This judgment addresses applications for condonation for late filing of applications for review and appeal by 2 employees of Golden Valley Mine namely Shadreck Mkuwu in LC/H/278/23 and Godknows Dube LC/H/277/23. On account of the fact that the matters deal with the same subject and that the relief sought is the same the parties to the matters requested that both matters be consolidated and be decided as a single matter. In the result the court ordered by consent on 19 July 2023 that the 2 matters be consolidated. This judgment therefore addresses the matters in their consolidated form. The parties... More
At the conclusion of the oral submissions the Court dismissed the appeal stating that the reasons would follow. The following are the reasons.
Appellant was employed by the Respondent. He is alleged to have been arrested whilst in possession of a quartzite stone. A subsequent Disciplinary Committee hearing found him guilty and he was dismissed. More
On 12 November 2015 applicants filed an application for condonation for late filing of an application for review. The founding affidavit was deposed to by 1st applicant. 11 affidavits were filed in support of the founding affidavit. Applicants place the blame for not complying with the rules of Court on their erstwhile legal practitioner who renounced agency. On 25 November 2015 respondents filed their notice of opposition. They raised a point in limine that first respondent was improperly cited as there is no office of an appeals chairman at the 2nd Respondent. An appeals committee is appointed on an ad... More
This is an appeal at the instance of the appellant employees and a cross appeal at the instance of the respondent employer.
The background to the matter is that the appellants and the respondent were in a contractual arrangement where the appellants were providing roving merchandising services to the respondent. They would go around supermarkets like TM and Spar advertising the respondent’s products. In return they would be paid for those services. In April 2020 they were stopped from carrying out their merchandise services by the respondent citing the COVID 19 pandemic. As at the time when they were stopped... More
