The Respondent through his Notice of Response and Heads of Argument has taken four points in limine. The points are as follows;
(1) That the Notice of Appeal as filed is fatally defective for non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 19 (1) of the Labour Court rules, 2017. More particularly that the appeal was filed outside of the twenty-one (21) days of receipt of determination as outlined in Rule 19 (1).
(2) That the relief being sought in the Notice of appeal is incompetent at law in that Appellant is seeking reinstatement only without an alternative claim for damages in... More
Applicant applied to this Court for condonation of late noting of appeal. The application was made in terms of Rule 22 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application. Previously applicant noted an appeal under reference LCH 559/23. The appeal was struck off the roll by this Court (Justice Chivizhe) on 23rd April 2024 by reason of a fatally defective Notice of Appeal. Applicant then filed the present application on 23 May 2024 More
The appellant was dismissed from the respondent’s employ for wilful disobedience to a lawful order given by his superior. It is common cause that the appellant was asked to write a report by his superior. He did not do so despite reminders for him to comply with the order. He only did so some months later. Clearly that was wilful disobedience of a lawful order given by someone in authority. The appellant was aggrieved by the dismissal. He appealed internally. The appeal failed. More
This is an appeal against the dismissal of Appellant from Respondent’s employ. There are eight(8) grounds of appeal . Out of those 8 grounds the parties agreed that with respect to the first four grounds they will abide by papers filed of record and oral argument will be restricted to grounds 5to7.As usual following the grounds is the prayer. The prayer reads:
‘WHEREFORE the Applicant prays for an Order for the setting aside of the Disciplinary Authority’s decision.’ More
The background to the matter is that applicant who was in the respondent’s employment as an Information Technology Officer was brought before a disciplinary committee to answer allegations of misconduct. At the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings he raised a point in limine that he had been charged using a wrong Code of Conduct. The hearing officer listened to submissions from both parties and ruled that the correct code had been used. Applicant was aggrieved by that and suggested that the hearing officer was biased and stated that she had to recuse herself from the matter. The hearing officer stated... More
