On 30 January 2014, Honourable J.T. Mawire issued an arbitral award in terms of which the applicant was ordered to reinstate the respondent without loss of salary and benefits, or pay him damages in lieu of reinstatement. More
Appellant claims that the respondent was put on compulsory leave. It is alleged that during investigations, it was uncovered that respondent was committing another misconduct relating to engaging in work which was in direct conflict with his contract of employment as he was working for another agency. Upon being confronted, and with the possibility of a police report, respondent is said to have opted to resign. A mutual termination is alleged to have been agreed to. Respondent is however said to have left and disappeared till appellant received the notice to attend to conciliation from the Ministry of Labour. More
Applicant approached the court for an order that;
“Respondents return motor vehicles, Toyota Hilux Double Cab, Registration Number ABP 5625 and Toyota Hilux Single Cab, Registration Number ABP 5627 to the Applicant immediately upon service of this order pending finalization of the appeal filed by the Respondents at the Labour Office.” More
At the close of submissions, I dismissed the application stating that the reasons would follow. The following are the reasons. Applicant employed respondent who alleged that he had been underpaid and brought the matter before an arbitrator. The arbitrator found in favour of respondent and applicant appealed against the decision. However, the matter was to suffer many false starts as the then legal practitioners withdrew the appeal. Respondent approached the arbitrator for quantification which was granted. Applicant was dissatisfied with the judgment of the arbitrator and approached this Court for relief. Maxwell J heard the matter and judgment was handed... More
Respondent was employed by Appellant and the contract of employment was terminated. Thereafter Respondent approached a Designated Agent alleging underpayment of wages and terminal benefits. Conciliation failed and the matter was referred to arbitration. More
The circumstances surrounding the charges are that sometime in March 2012 the Respondent deliberately misrepresented to a refuse collection company that was normally contracted by the Appellant to collect discarded bottles at the Appellant’s premises. It was Appellant’s allegation that when he did so Respondent knew he was supposed to have removed the said bottles at his own cost. This was as a result of an oral agreement he had entered into with Appellant’s representatives that he (respondent) would in exchange of pallets donated to him by the Appellant clear the discarded bottles at Appellant’s premises at his own cost.... More
