Respondent was in the employ of the Appellant as a Production Manager before being elevated to the position of Acting Divisional Manager. Respondent was subsequently re-appointed to Production Manager which resulted in matter being referred to conciliation. Conciliation failed and the matter was referred to arbitrator. The Arbitrator found in favour of Respondent. More
Respondent filed an application for rescission of judgment in the name of its Human Resources Manager on the 9 September 2013. Applicant duly filed its response to that application on the 8 January 2014 and served it on respondent’s legal practitioners of record in the application for quantification which is also before this court.
The application for rescission of judgment has not been set down for hearing in terms of Rule 21 of this Court’s Rules S.I. 59 of 2006. More
d) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].
The factual background to the matter is as follows:
The applicant was employed by the respondent as a Sales and Marketing Manager. The applicant fell ill and had to proceed on statutory sick leave. After the expiry of the statutory leave days, a qualified medical practitioner having recommended retirement on medical grounds, the applicant appeared before the ZESA Medical Board. He appeared on two separate occasions before the Board. What happened at the Medical Board is subject to different interpretations by both parties. The applicant alleges that on the two separate occasions the... More
This is an application for upliftment of bar and condonation of late filing of heads of argument.
The applicant filed an appeal with this court on 17 May 2013. On 5 June 2013 the respondent filed its response. In terms of r 19(1)(a) of the Labour Court Rules S I 59 of 2006, the applicant was supposed to file its heads of argument within fourteen days of receiving the response from the respondent. The failure to comply with r 19(1)(a) has resulted in the applicant being barred in terms of r 19(3)(b). More
This judgment concerns a matter which has a sad and long history of it being dealt with piecemeal in the sense that it has had more than one judgment handed down on it based on its technical niceties of compliance with the rules in one respect or the other. Resultantly the merits of the main appeal have not been attended to yet the matter has been enrolled more than six times since 2012 to date all on technical niceties thus creating unnecessary backlog for the Labour Court. More
This is an application for rescission of Judgment granted by this court on 29 July 2013 dismissing the applicants’ appeal.
On 8 January 2014the applicants applied for rescission of the default order.
The factors to be considered in an application such as this one are;
• length of delay in applying for rescission.
• reasons for the default.
• prospects of success, and balance of convenience. More
