The appellant filed an appeal against the decision of the respondent’s mine manager, in his capacity as administering official who presided over his appeal. (Appeal Officer). The Appeal Officer upheld the Disciplinary Committee’s determination, which found the appellant guilty of misconduct and imposed a penalty of dismissal. More
This is an application for review. It is opposed. At the commencement of the hearing two preliminary issues were raised on behalf of the respondent. Firstly, Mr Matsikidze who appeared on behalf of the respondent criticized the grounds for review. He argued that the said grounds are combined grounds of appeal on the merits and review. Secondly , Mr Matsikidze argued that the relief sought is incompetent in that the applicant seeks reinstatement instead of having the decision set aside and a rehearing ordered. In the result it was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the application ought to... More
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a hydraulics and pneumatics technician. He resigned from employment on 8 December 2010 after giving three months’ notice. Upon termination of the contract of employment the parties agreed that, the amount due to the appellant was $2 727-87 being outstanding salaries and terminal benefits. The appellant wanted the whole amount to be paid at once while the respondent offered to pay in instalments of $350-00 per month starting March 2011 and ending December 2011. The parties failed to agree on the period of payment and the matter was referred to conciliation. No... More
The notice of application for review sets out three (3) grounds for review being bias, irrationality and predetermined outcome. In the course of oral argument respondent abandoned its objection to the 3rd ground (predetermined outcome). As for the 2nd ground (irrationally) it is just 6 lines which essentially say the decision impugned was based on applicant’s absence from the hearing without considering the reasons for the absence. This Court considers it as a cognisable ground for review. Apparently, respondent’s real beef is about the 1st ground (bias). The ground was broken down into 9 paragraphs. These cover a range of... More
