This is an application for condonation of late filing of an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. In terms of Rule 36 of the Labour Court Rules SI 59/2006 leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from any decision this Court must be made within thirty (30) days from the date of that decision. In this case the decision sought to be appealed against was made on 13 September 2013. The present application was filed on 21 May 2014, after nine months from the date of judgment. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award made in favour of the respondents.
The three respondents were employed by the appellant in different capacities on fixed term contracts of one month at a time. The contracts were continuously renewed to the extent that the first respondent worked for appellant for a period of 7 years 6 months, the second respondent worked for 1 year 3 months and the third respondent worked for 1 year 7 months. On
30 September 2010 the three respondents were advised by the appellant orally after work not to report for duty the following day... More
The brief history of this matter is that the respondents were employed by the appellant. It is alleged that the respondents made a report at Mega Park and when an audit report was carried out the report was found to be false. They were suspended from duty on 4 November 2010 on allegations of making a false report. A disciplinary hearing was conducted and the respondents were dismissed from work. More
The background facts to this matter are largely common cause. The respondents were employed by the applicant as security guards on fixed term contracts renewable every three months. Their duties were in respect to the applicant’s quasi fiscal activities which were finally wound up in the first quarter of 2011. The respondents’ period of employment ranged from 2007 and August 2008 to January and April 2011 when their contracts expired by effluxion of time and were not renewed. More
At the commencement of the proceedings, 2nd Appellant informed the Court that Appellants were waiting for a Mr. Mangwende who was coming to present the matter on their behalf. Mr. Mangwende’s motor vehicle was alleged to have broken down near Mutare. The Court inquired from 2nd Appellant whether this Mr. Mangwende was a legal practitioner or trade unionist. It turned out that he was neither. The court informed 2nd Appellant that in the result Mr. Mangwende could not present their case having regard to the provisions of section 92 of the Labour Act. Appellants thereafter made a decision to have... More
