This is an application for condonation of late application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court combined with an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
On 25 October 2013 this Court granted an application for the granting of the appeal in terms of Rule 19 (3) (a) of S.I. 59/06 as respondent in that matter (now applicant) had not filed heads of argument as required by the same rules. In terms of Rule 36 of S.I. 59/06, a party desiring to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against any decision of this court must... More
The respondent is employed by the appellant as a general worker. Respondent raised grievances that she should have been promoted to a public convenience cleaner, that she had not been paid acting allowances when she acted as a public convenience cleaner and that she was entitled to a noxious substance allowance. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award which reversed a decision of the disciplinary committee which had found the respondent guilty of misconduct and dismissed him from employment.
The respondent was employed by the appellant as a charge hand. In October 2006 he was appointed to be acting superintendent. In 2008 he then performed the duties of assistant workshop manager in an acting capacity. More
This is an application for upliftment of the automatic bar operating against the applicant after failing to file heads of argument timeously. It is opposed. It was also noted that the applicant’s legal practitioners did not file an assumption agency. They should have done so as required by the rules. The rules are clear on this and it is a mandatory requirement. Rule 18 of the Rules of this court, Statutory Instrument 59 of 2006 provides that: ‘’ (1) If a party is represented by a legal practitioner, the legal practitioner shall file a written notice of assumption of agency... More
The applicant is applying for leave to appeal against the judgment of this court that was handed down on 31 January 2020.
The applicant had retired the Respondent at the age of 60 years instead of 65 years. Retirement at the age of 60 years was provided for in the Pension Fund. Retirement at the age of 65 years was provided for in the contract of employment.
This court found that the applicant had no lawful right to reduce the retirement age to 60 years. More
