This is an application for a review of the decision of the Respondent’s Disciplinary Committee which found Applicant guilty of contravening the National Code of conduct SI 15 /06 and subsequently dismissed her.
Applicant was suspended and charged on 26 November 2012 with theft or fraud, alternatively, conduct which is inconsistent with one’s conditions of contract in contravention of the National Code of Conduct. She was brought before a Disciplinary Committee which deliberated on her matter and found her guilty of the misconduct complained of. More
The appeal was noted as against an arbitral award handed down on an unspecificieddate the operative part of which reads as follows;
“4.1 This matter was resolved at the conciliation level. It should never have been brought to arbitration. Entertaining the complainant is an abuse of the dispute resolution system. I have no mandate to overturn an agreement that was entered by parties willingly.
4.2 Accordingly, this case is dismissed in entirely. Parties must abide by the agreement entered on 16 November, 2011.” More
The real issue for determination in this matter is whether the applicant and the first respondent concluded a contract for the sale of land.
The facts in this matter are basically common cause. The applicant sought to buy land belonging to the first respondent. The first respondent in turn wanted to increase its revenue base from undeveloped land under its control and ownership. Commencing in 2008, the two parties entered into discussions and negotiations over land in the applicant’s central business district. More
Appellant was dismissed from employment by 2nd Respondent on grounds of misconduct. She sought a review of the dismissal. 1st Respondent reviewed but confirmed her dismissal from employment. She then appealed to this Court. Her grounds of appeal were two-fold. More
This case epitomises the need for legal practitioners to have clarity of mind in deciding on a cause of action they wish to rely on. Such clarity of mind would serve to curtail pursuing untenable positions. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the Respondent’s Appeals Committee, which upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Committee, in terms of which Appellant was found guilty of misconduct and dismissed from employment. More
