The facts of this matter are not really in dispute. They are that the appellant was accused of stealing certain items at the work place by a colleague. More
At the hearing of this matter Respondent raised two points in lime which are the subject of this judgment. The first is that Applicant is barred for non-compliance with Rule 19 (1) of this Court’s Rules SI 59/2006, having failed to file and serve heads of argument within the stipulated time. The second is that Applicant did not follow the prescribed format of an application set out in the said rules as Form LC1 was not completed. More
At the hearing of this matter I denied respondent the indulgence to file a notice of response belatedly. The matter proceeded in terms of Rule 22 (b) (i). The appeal was granted and the arbitral award was set aside. The following are the reasons for that decision. More
Respondent was employed by Appellant. Respondent’s contract was allegedly unprocedurally terminated and the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator found in Respondent’s favour by ordering reinstatement. Appellant was however uncomfortable with reinstating Respondent and requested the arbitrator to proceed with quantification of damages in lieu of reinstatement. The arbitrator proceeded to do this and Appellant is dissatisfied and has approached this Court on appeal. More
