This appeal was set down in terms of Rule 19 (3)(a) of the Labour Court Rules, 2006. The appellant, being represented by a legal practitioner had not filed its heads of argument in terms of Rule 19 (1)(a) of the Rules. More
Appellant having been aggrieved by an arbitral award noted an appeal to this court in terms of Section 98(10) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] the Act. More
1. On the 5th of July 2024 this court granted leave to appeal a decision of this court. The court was desirous to see the issue of jurisdiction that was before it looked at by a superior court of more than one Judge. This was clearly espoused to the parties. A few days after the order granting leave was issued there was a request for reasons for the order. This was not really surprising as the parties had had two bruising battles which clearly showed that there would be a long and arduous fight. More
The Applicant was employed by the second respondent. He was charged of acts of misconduct by the very second respondent, found guilty and dismissed from work. The Applicant appealed against, as well as applied for a review of, the decision before this court, citing the second respondent only. The second respondent denied jurisdiction of this court in that case. Case LC/H/1186/22 refers. Having met this hurdle the Applicant applied for joinder of the second respondent in the present case LC/H/494/23. More
This is an application for the review of disciplinary proceedings conducted in the applicant’s case on charges levelled against him by the respondent employer. More
