This is an application for leave to appeal a judgment of this Court, judgment number LC/H/746/13, to the Supreme Court. The Court in that judgment remitted the matter back to the applicant and ordered the applicant in the present application to record mitigation before approaching this Court. The order was made because the appeal was not properly before the Court. An adjudicating authority is enjoined by section 12 A (4) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] to consider mitigation before pronouncing a penalty especially where dismissal is a possibility. In that regard therefore it would have been inappropriate for the... More
The matter was placed before mepurportedly as an application for condonation of late noting of an appeal.
After perusing the record and upon an enquiry with the applicant’s legal practitioner, it became apparent that the applicant was actually seeking condonation for the late filing of an appeal co-joined with an application for review – a two in one approach. Apart from that the court’s enquiry also established that the two i.e. the appeal and the application for review relate to two different arbitral awards – a principal award and a quantification award issued pursuant to the first. This however was... More
The appellant submitted that the Appeals Committee had erred in not finalising the matter within thirty (30) calendar days in terms of the Code. It was further stated on behalf of the Appellate that the charge of theft was not proved as the guest in question had not been called to testify. The appellant further submitted that the penalty of dismissal was too harsh in the circumstances. More
This matter was determined on the basis of the record as agreed to by the parties’ respective legal practitioners.
This is an application for condonation of late noting of appeal. In order for an application of this nature to succeed, the following considerations must be made.
(a) Whether the extent of the delay was inordinate regard being had to the circumstances of the case
(b) Whether a reasonable explanation for the delay was proffered
(c) Whether there are prospects of success should the matter be heard on the merits. More
The respondent was charged with misconduct in terms of what is styled, in the Charge Sheet, as the Marathon Group of Companies Code of Conduct. He is alleged to have contravened section 12 thereof, receiving or attempting to receive a bribe. More
