On 22 February 2024 this court dismissed with costs on the ordinary scale an application for review, which application had been filed by Christ Ministries High School against Edwin Chikuni its former employee and Cleopatra Mhariwa the Designated Agent. Upon pronouncement of the decision the court advised the parties that they were free to request for full reasons for the decision if they needed them. The school has through a letter under the hand of its lawyers stamped 19 March 2023 requested for the reasons of the order of 22 February 2024. More
This is an application for review of the determination by the Retrenchment Board dated 13 October 2015. The Retrenchment Board in its determination stated that
“Kindly be advised that the Retrenchment Board has no jurisdiction over disputes arising from terms and conditions of employment.
Please refer the matter to a labour officer as per Section 93 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]” More
This matter was set down as an application in terms of section 93 (7) (ii) Labour Act [Cap 28:01] where the applicant was seeking an order to compel the respondent employer to pay him certain money which he believed was due to him following a settlement of a labour dispute between him and the respondent employer. More
The appellant raised a point in limine that while respondent has applied for condonation for late filing of heads of argument the respondent was in fact improperly before the court for failure to file a notice of response. The respondent admitted that they were in breach of filing the notice of response. The issue had also been raised out of court by the court through the clerk as the court wanted to know whether it could be a filing error at the court. Despite this early reminder the respondent had not applied for rectification. In fact the respondent proceeded as... More
The applicants were employed by the respondent in different capacities. Following allegations that they committed offences they were charged and subsequently dismissed. The process was punctuated with numerous applications. The applicants then noted an appeal against the arbitrator’s decision dismissing them from employment on 11 June 2013. The respondent filed its Notice of Response on 28 June 2013. The applicants who were duly represented by a legal practitioner did not file the heads of argument within 14 days of receiving the Notice of Response as required in terms of the rules. More
