This is appeal against an arbitral award in which the arbitral award in which the arbitrator had to determine who the correct respondent was between the cited respondent and a sister company called K M Agribusiness, also known as Caprisun Agricultural Sales (Pvt) Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Caprisun).
The arbitrator found that the appellant had wrongly sued the respondent as his former employer yet his correct former employer was Caprisun and dismissed the claim. More
This is an application for condonation of late filing of a notice of response by the Applicants to an appeal filed by the Respondent.
Respondent filed an appeal on the 11th February, 2015 against an arbitral award pitting itself and the Applicants. The appeal was served on the Applicants on the 5th March, 2015. In terms of Rule 15 sub-rule (2) of this Court’s Rules Statutory Instrument 59 of 2006 Applicants were obliged to file their response within 14 days of date of service. More
This matter was referred to me for determination on the record in terms of Section 89 (2) (a) (i) of the Labour Act [Cap 28 : 01]. It is one of the matters that have otherwise been lying idle due to failure on the part of the Appellant to pay sheriff’s costs for services of Notice of Set-Down. More
The respondent was employed by the appellant as a Plant Manager in Mozambique. He was dismissed from employment following disciplinary proceedings for absenteeism from work. The matter was referred to an Arbitrator who ordered that the respondent be reinstated or payment of damages in lieu of reinstatement. More
The appellant was employed as a Restaurant Supervisor by the respondent. She was dismissed from employment following disciplinary proceedings. Aggrieved by that outcome she appeals to this Court on the following grounds and I quote:
“1. The court a quo misdirected itself on the fact (sic) in holding that the Appellant was guilty of misconduct (sic) inconsistent with the contract of employment.
2. The court a quo erred at law by finding the Appellant guilty of a matter that had no evidence or proof. If the complainant was aggrieved should have raised a grievance (sic).
3. The court a quo... More
