At the commencement of the proceedings Mr Chopamba sought to apply for a postponement as the respondent had not formally filed a response to the Notice of Appeal. He stated that the reason for late filing of the response was that the respondent had not timeously received the requisite authorisation to brief-out Counsel from the Attorney General’s Office. He stated that it was a requirement that written approval be given by that office before instructing a legal practitioner. Mr Chopamba, further submitted that the application for condonation for late filing of the response could not be done in time as... More
This is an appeal against the 1st respondents’ decision convicting the appellant of misconduct and imposing a penalty of dismissal. This was after disciplinary proceedings had been conducted against him. The following are the grounds of appeal.
“1. The Disciplinary Authority erred at law in finding Appellant guilty of proposing love to Gracious Manguwo whereas the evidence of the alleged text messages was not availed.
2. The Disciplinary Authority further erred in relying on the single testimony of Gracious Manguwo which was not corroborated and substantiated.
3. The Disciplinary Authority further erred in believing the testimony of Gracious Manguwo that... More
This is an application for confirmation of a ruling by a Designated Agent. The ruling was made after a certificate of no settlement was made. The Designated Agent relied on claimant and Respondent’s written submissions.
When the parties appeared before this court they indicated that they were not opposing the application. Mr Tundu indicated that he had not filed the notice of opposition and heads of arguments. He then applied for condonation of late filing of the notice of opposition and heads of arguments. This court dismissed this application because despite being served with the notice of application in August... More
This is an application for the reinstatement of a matter after the matter was previously struck off. It was struck off because the founding affidavit was defective. The applicant said that they had corrected the affidavit and were therefore applying for reinstatement of the matter. The first respondent opposed the application on the ground that this was a wrong procedure because the matter that the applicant was seeking to have reinstated was declared a nullity hence the striking off. Being a nullity that meant that there was nothing to reinstate. The correct procedure was to apply for condonation in order... More
This is an application for confirmation of a draft ruling and order. It is being brought in terms of section 93 (5a) (a) and (b) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. Both respondents oppose its confirmation but for different reasons. The first (1st) Respondent’s prayer is that the ruling by the applicant be set aside and be substituted by a finding that the 1st Respondent pays the 2nd Respondent the amount of USD $383-00. The 2nd Respondent says that the application be dismissed with costs on the punitive scale and such costs to be borne by the 1st Respondent and... More
