Respondent was charged with four acts of misconduct arising out of an act of unlawful re-connecting telephone lines of clients whom Appellant had disconnected for defaulting in their payments for services rendered. More
Appellant is appealing against the decision of the arbitrator who upheld his dismissal by the Respondent company which he used to work for.
The fact of the case are that Appellant who was in the Respondent’s employ as a fleet manager was summarily dismissed by the Respondent for contravening the Transport Industry Code of conduct, it being alleged that he had committed acts of gross negligence contrary to expectation of his duties. More
On 29th August 2011 the Honourable C Kabasa made an arbitration award. In terms thereof, he dismissed Appellant’s claims and referred the matter to Respondent’s disciplinary committee for a hearing. Appellant was aggrieved by the award. He then appealed to this Court against the award. More
On 25th January 2012, Applicant filed an application for review by this Court. Her founding affidavit, as amplied by her submissions show, the following facts:
1.
She worked for Respondent as a Handling Supervisor based at Norton.
2.
On 26TH January 2010 she was suspended without pay.
3.
On 27th January 2010 she was charged with misconduct.
4.
On 4th and 11th February 2010 a disciplinary hearing was held.
5.
On 22nd February 2010 she was informed of the outcome of the hearing through a letter of dismissal.
6.
On 1st March 2010 she appealed against her dismissal. More
This is an opposed application wherein the applicant seeks the following relief:
“1. 1st, 2nd , 3rd, 4th and 5thRespondents and all persons claiming occupation through
them on Subdivision B of Sandibloom in Headlands Makoni District in
Manicaland Province be and are hereby interdicted from interfering whatsoever
with applicant’s rights of occupation on the farm. More
On the 12th April 2012 the Honourable C Kabasa made an arbitration award. In terms thereof he dismissed Appellant’s claim of unfair dismissal by Respondent. Appellant then appealed to this Court. Her grounds of appeal were as follows,
“The Arbitrator misdirected himself in one or all of the following points of law:
1. In failing to make a correct application of the law relating to prescription of disputes according to Section 94 of the Labour Act (Chapter 28:01) and
2. In failing to give a correct interpretation of section 14 of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01).” More
