The applicant raises two grounds for review, that is that, firstly, the respondent’s Appeals Officer erred in upholding the decision by the Disciplinary Committee where the Disciplinary Committee had failed to address a preliminary point regarding its own jurisdiction to deal with the matter before considering the merits of the case before it; and secondly, that the decision of the Appeals Officer was grossly irregular in that it upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Committee where that Committee had failed to afford the applicant an opportunity to make an address in mitigation before a penalty was imposed. More
This is an application for condonation for late filing an application for review. It is opposed.
The requirements to be considered and weighed one against the other in order for an application of this nature to succeed as held in Bessie Maheya v Independent Africa Church More
This is a judgment on a preliminary point raised on behalf of both respondents. The background of the matter is that the applicant was employed by an entity known as Medical Investments Limited as a Clerk. This was in terms of a Fixed Term Contract which was signed on 19 December 2007. He was charged with
fraud. Following disciplinary proceedings he was dismissed from employment. His internal appeal was unsuccessful. He was aggrieved by that outcome. He has filed an application for review. It is against this application that a preliminary issue been raised. More
Appellant was in the employ of the respondent. Following allegations of misconduct, appellant was brought before a Disciplinary Committee which found him guilty and recommended his dismissal. An appeal to the National Appeals Committee did not yield the desired results and the appellant has approached this court for relief. More
On the 2nd February 2024 at Harare, Arbitrator S Mudimu issued an award. She ordered appellant (employer) to pay respondent (employee) a sum of $11, 900.00 in respect of arrear salaries and leave pay. Appellant then appealed the award to this Court in terms of Section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. Respondent opposed the appeal. More
