Appellants are employees of the respondent in the Housing Department. In the period between 2005 and 2010 they were all appointed to act in a higher grade, from grade 16 to grade 11. On 12 February 2011 appellants referred to conciliation two issues, non-payment of acting allowance by the respondent and a claim for substantive appointment to the positions they were acting in. More
The background to the matter is that around 2009 when the country faced an acute brain drain due to the then prevailing economic conditions applicant employees were said to have done work in capacities beyond their grades but did not get promoted to the higher grades neither were they paid for the duties they performed in that high capacity. More
On 13 November 2014 I dismissed with costs an appeal filed by Respondents after an application was made in terms of Rule 19 (3) (a) of the Labour Court Rules SI 59/2006. The said rule obliges an appellant to file heads of argument within fourteen days of receiving a notice of response to the appeal. On 20 November 2014 Respondent wrote to the Registrar of this Court requesting for a reasoned judgment. The reasons for the dismissal of the appeal are clear. More
This is an application for the rescission of a default judgment handed down by this court on 7 February 2014 where the applicant who was the then appellant failed to turn up on the set down date to prosecute his appeal. More
The applicant noted an application for review on or about the 28th February 2014 before this Court. This is the matter which was set for hearing. At the hearing, applicant’s legal representative proceeded to make an oral application for condonation of late noting of the review. This seems to have been prompted by the point in limine raised, that as the application was filed out of time without any application for condonation, it was a legal nullity. This is my ruling on the application for condonation of the late noting of the review. More
Counsel for the applicant was of the view that the extent of delay was eight days. On the other hand it was submitted for the respondent there was a delay of thirty five days. It is not in dispute that the applicant was advised to comply with practice directive 1 of 2014 by 4 March 2014. This is the date upon which it was expected that the applicant if still interested in the prosecution of the matter must have paid the sheriff’s fees for service. Applicant did not pay. I agree with the respondent the dies inducie must be counted... More
