Welcome to Midlands State University Library

Court Judgements



Browse Court Judgements by court
On 11th January 2012 this Court made an order. In terms thereof, Respondent was ordered to reinstate Applicant’s employment. Alternatively Respondent was ordered to pay Applicant damages for loss of employment in a sum either agreed by the parties or assessed by this Court. On 9th February 2012 the parties drew up and signed an agreement. As a result of the agreement, Respondent paid Applicant an amount of US$998.74. More

The appellant in this case was employed by Braeside Spar as a counter hand. She was charged for lack of skill which she expressly held herself out to possess. The facts leading to this allegation against her were that, on 29 October 2012 the respondent failed to serve a client in a manner that was expected of her, leading to the client lodging complaints against her with management. More

This is an appeal by the employer (appellant) against a decision in favour of the respondent. The brief facts are that the respondent was suspended from employment on 29 October 2012. She was thereafter charged with an act of misconduct and was found guilty. The disciplinary committee recommended after hearing the matter that the respondent be given a final written warning. The employer ordered that she be dismissed. More

This is an application for condonation of late noting of appeal against the decision of Honourable Arbitrator Ndomene which was issued on the 16th of May 2012. The Arbitrator confirmed the Respondent’s ruling to dismiss the Applicant from employment. The Applicant has given his reasons for the delay. He stated that he was in the rural areas and he could not pay the Arbitrator. He has also stated that he has prospects of success because his absenteeism was due to illness during a period when the country was going through an economic meltdown. The Applicant also stated that the 2nd... More

Applicant applied to this Court for the review of her dismissal from employment by Respondent. The application was made in terms of section 89(1) (d1) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 hereafter called the Act. Respondent opposed the application More