This is an appeal against the decision of the Respondent’s Appeals Committee which upheld the determination of the Disciplinary Committee which found the Appellant guilty of misconduct culminating in his dismissal from employment.
The brief facts are that Appellant was employed by the Respondent as head responsible for Human Capital Administration. He was charged with misconduct in terms of Respondent’s Code of Conduct. He was brought before the Disciplinary Committee which found him guilty and recommended his dismissal. Appellant was dissatisfied and approached the Appeals Committee for relief. The Appeals Committee upheld two of the charges and found Appellant not... More
The applicant is a former employee of the 1st respondent. He was charged with various acts of misconduct leading to his dismissal on one of them after some of the charges were overturned in the internal appeal. 2nd to 4th respondents appear in their official capacities as office holders of the first respondent who played roles in the disciplinary process. The applicant was aggrieved by the process leading to his dismissal hence the present application. More
This is an appeal against the dismissal of the appellant from the employ of the respondent. Before the appeal could be heard, a preliminary issue was raised on behalf of the respondent. The preliminary issue was to the effect that the employer of the appellant was not cited. Mr Chitekuteku who appeared on behalf of the respondent submitted that the appellant ought to have cited the Minister of Primary and Secondary Education (the Minister) together with the Public Service Commission (PSC). The PSC, the submission continued, is the employer and not the Minister . Mr Chitekuteku argued that without the... More
At the onset of oral argument in this Court respondents raised a point in limine which applicant opposed. The point is summarised in respondents opposing affidavit as follows
“2. In limine
The Applicant is approaching this Court without exhausting the Appeals process in that he applied for review of this to this Court without exhausting the remedies provided for in section 10 of the Welfare and Educational Institutions Employers Association Code of conduct which the authority which was used to charge the Applicant.” More
The applicant, who is a labour officer duly appointed under the provisions of Section121 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] is seeking in this application, confirmation of his ruling made in terms of Section 93 (5) (c) of the Labour Act [Chapter28:01]. The ruling which was made in a matter pitting Lloyd Kanera and 6 Others v Haumin Investments (Pvt) Ltd was handed down on 16 May 2016. The application is opposed. More
