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
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
