This is an appeal against the decision of the disciplinary authority dated 27 August 2024. Background to the matter is that appellant who was in the respondent’s employment as an operations administrator, was accused of having engaged in conduct which was inconsistent with the dictates of her employment. She was therefore charged with a breach of Section 4(d) of the National Code. Seven accusations were levelled against her but she was acquitted on 4 and found guilty on the remaining three. The guilty verdict on the three resulted in her dismissal from employment. The three counts whish she was found... More
This is an appeal from Honourable Manase’s decision. The facts show that the respondents were employed by the appellant. Respondents were offered employment which was conditional on their completing their respective probationary periods. After the probationary periods had expired it is alleged that appellant wrote to the respondents informing them that due to unsatisfactory performance during the probation period the appellant was renewing the probation period. The matter was referred to conciliation and finally to arbitration. The arbitrator found in favour of the respondents. Appellant has therefore appealed to this Court. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award ordering Appellant to pay bush allowance to the Respondents’ for the period April 2009 to April 2010.
The brief facts are that the Respondents were employed by the Appellant on a 2 year fixed contract. The Appellant did not renew the contracts after the expiration of the two years. Aggrieved by such non-renewal of the contracts, the Respondents’ filed a complaint that their fixed contracts were unlawfully terminated and that they were not paid their full salaries during their employment period. The matter was subsequently referred for arbitration. More
Applicant applied to this Court for quantification of damages for loss of employment. The application was made in terms of the Court’s judgment issued on 25 March 2022 which inter alia ordered that;
“2(b) 2nd Respondent (BRDC) shall pay Applicant damages in lieu of reinstatement in an amount either agreed by the parties or assessed by this Court.” More
Two preliminary issues were raised on behalf of the respondent. These are:
(i) that there is no cause of action.
(ii) estoppel – that the applicant waived his rights when he received a package from the employer following retrenchment and as such he is estopped from challenging the retrenchment process. More
