Appellant was employed by the respondent. It is alleged by appellant that he was initially employed on probation for a period of three months with an understanding from the respondent that he would be employed on a permanent basis on expiry of this period. This did not materialise and appellant signed two further fixed term contracts on the understanding that these periods would be taken into account when the employment contract was eventually finalised. Appellant alleges that he thereafter left employment in September 2011. The dispute was subsequently referred to arbitration. The Arbitrator found in favour of respondent. Appellant has... More
This is an appeal against a decision from the respondent’s Disciplinary Authority(DA).
Mr Mareya, the Appellant was employed by the Respondent as its General Manager, Projects. He was dismissed from employment following disciplinary proceedings on two counts of violating section 4 (a) of the National Code of Conduct S. I 15/2006 as read with sections 14 and 45 of the Public Finance Management Act, [Chapter 22:19] [P.F.M.A.]. Aggrieved by that decision, he appeals on the following grounds and I quote: More
The application was placed before me as an application for quantification. The application is ‘purportedly’ made in terms of Section 89(1)a of the Labour Act as read with Rule 14 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. There is a dispute between the parties as to the accuracy of the provision cited by Applicant. The issue will be determined below. Sufficient to note at this stage that the application is opposed by the Respondent. More
This is an appeal against an award by a labour officer. Before the appeal could be heard two preliminary points were taken on behalf of the respondent. These are that: (i) the appellants have not complied with Rule 11A of the Rules of this Court; and (ii) the prayer is defective. More
