The matter was placed before me as an appeal against a determination by the Responsible Disciplinary Committee handed down on the 6th August 2013 which determination found the Appellant guilty on a charge of violation of Schedule Part J, Sub-section 2 (b) of the relevant Code of Conduct and consequently a dismissal penalty was imposed. More
is an application for Condonation for the late noting of an appeal.
The factors to be taken into consideration in an application such as this are the extent of the delay, the reasonableness of the explanation for the delay and the prospects of success see General Kodzwa v Secretary of Health and Another 1999 (1) ZLR 313 (S). I propose to consider the said factors in relation to this case. More
This is an appeal against the decision by the Respondent’s Chief Executive Officer dated 25th November, 2013, which decision confirmed an earlier decision by the Hearing Committee to dismiss Appellant from employment.
The material background facts are as follows:
The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a truck driver. On the 11th of October 213 he left Harare on a trip to Zambia. He returned on the 29th of October 2013. He had been given a full tank of diesel and 150 litres header tank for the trip. Upon his return from the trip he had a shortfall of... More
Appellant was in the employ of the Respondent. The facts are that he bought some meat products from Respondent’s workplace on the pretext that there was a traditional ceremony he was going to attend when in fact there were for sale. He was subsequently charged under the Employer’s Code of Conduct and dismissed from employment. His dismissal was upheld by the Arbitrator. Appellant is dissatisfied and has approached this Court for relief. More
It is common cause that the appellant signed an agreement of full and final settlement after the verdict of dismissal. On 17 December 2013 he accepted a sum of $825-69 in full and final settlement of his terminal benefits. In that agreement he also accepted that he was not going to claim in future or in retrospect any payments of any nature arising out of the same subject matter.
It is because of this agreement that this court finds that the appeal lacks merit. The appellant should not have accepted any settlement if he wanted to appeal against the verdict... More
The brief facts are that applicant who was employed on a fixed term contract by respondent was dismissed from employment on a charge of gross negligence in July 2012. The last such contract was for the period 11 May 2012 to 9 August 2012. On appeal to this court, applicant was successful. Respondent was ordered to reinstate him without loss of salary or benefits or alternatively damages in lieu of reinstatement. Applicant lodged an application for quantification of damages. Unfortunately applicant defaulted on the date of set down, despite proper service. The court proceeded to determine the matter and awarded... More
This is an application for quantification of damages following an order of this court whose operative part reads:
“The respondent having conceded to the appeal, the appeal be and is hereby allowed. The director’s verdict be and is hereby quashed and the Disciplinary Committee’s verdict be and is hereby confirmed. More
