The brief factual background is that the applicant on 6 November, 2013 appeared before a disciplinary committee to answer a charge of failure to follow a lawful instruction issued by his supervisor. He was found guilty and a penalty of dismissal was consequently imposed. On 26 November, 2013 he appealed under the provisions of the relevant code of conduct to the Managing Director. The Managing Director in his determination upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Committee. The next level of appeal under the code was the NEC Appeals Committee. On 21 January 2013 the applicant noted an appeal to that... More
This is an appeal against an award by an arbitrator. After hearing the matter the Learned Arbitrator confirmed the appellant’s dismissal from the respondent’s employ. Aggrieved by that award the appellant appeals to this court on the following grounds:
“1. The arbitrator grossly misdirected himself by concluding that it is legally correct for the respondent to selectively charge an individual for alleged misconduct arising from a collective decision of a board formed in terms of statute. In this case out of six members of the Procurement Committee only three members were charged and others were not, without any reason being... More
The only issue to be decided in this matter is the scale of costs By way of background the employee filed with this court a Notice to withdraw an application which he had filed with this court.
He however did not tender wasted costs. This prompted the employer to invite him to tender costs. Again he did not and this gave rise to the sitting where both parties presented before this court to argue the issue of costs only. The point of departure in the matter is that the employer is calling for punitive costs to be awarded against the... More
Appellant appealed to this Court against his discharge from employment by Respondent. The ground of appeal was worded as follows,
“The decision by respondent to uphold my discharge was misplaced because it was based on a wrong admission of guilty which was made at the behest of the disciplinary committee which misled and pressurised the respondent to admit what he had not done. The admission did not consider the mitigatory issues tendered by the appellant.”
In addition Appellant filed Heads of Argument in support of his appeal. The Heads declaimed thus, More
This is an application for the dismissal of Respondent’s appeal in terms of Rule 19 (3)(a) of this honourable Court’s rules. The appeal was filed on 19 August 2013. The notice of response was filed on 28 August 2013. In terms of Rule 19 Appellant was supposed to file Heads of Argument within fourteen days of receiving the response. This requirement was not complied with. More
