This is an application for the registration of an arbitral award.
The facts which are common cause are as follows;
On 29 July 2012 an arbitrator handed down an arbitral award in favour of the applicant. The respondent filed an application for review with the Labour Court on 22 August 2012. The applicant filed this application on 7 September 2012. More
This is an appeal against sentence. At the time the appeal was heard the appellant was out on bail. He was granted bail pending appeal within one week of having been sentenced. More
Applicant was employed by Respondent as an Environmental Health Technician and was dismissed from employment following a disciplinary hearing on the 16th of January 2013 with effect from the 12th December 2011.
Applicant filed an appeal with this Court on the 19th of February 2013 against his dismissal. He has proceeded to file an Urgent Chamber Application wherein he prays for reinstatement, the same prayer in his appeal. In other words, Applicant is actually applying that his appeal be heard before the others before his. More
The Labour Court on 23 September, 2009 granted a default judgment in favour of the Respondent. On 14 July, 2010 Applicants filed simultaneously an application for condonation of late filing of an application for rescission as well as an application for rescission of judgment. More
Applicant is dissatisfied with Respondent’s refusal to pay his incentives amounting to $4400.00 from the date his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement. More
This litigation and indeed the dispute between the parties could have been avoided. It is the signal failure of the office of the Mining Commissioner to manage a simple mining issue which has brought about the simmering conflict between neighbours, a conflict which could have led to dire consequences, but for, the commendable self- restraint of the parties who have continued to submit themselves to due process only to be let down by the Mining Commissioner’s Office. More
This is an application for a review of the decision of the first respondent which refused to uphold the exception to the misconduct charges which had been leveled against the applicant.
The brief facts of the matter are that on 18 June 2012 the applicant was brought before the first respondent facing charges of contravening SI 171/ 10 which is the 2nd respondent’s code of conduct . In particular it was alleged that he had committed the offence of “fighting or riotous behavior “at his workplace contrary to the spirit of the code of conduct. More
