Applicant applied for damages for loss of employment in the total sum of US$43,656.00 inclusive of back-pay and benefits. Respondent opposed the application but offered damages in the sum of US$11,575.00. The application was premised upon an order of this Court. The order compelled Respondent to either reinstate Applicant’s employment or pay him damages in lieu of reinstatement. Apparently reinstatement was ruled out leaving assessment of damages as the outstanding issue. More
This is an appeal against a decision of the respondent dismissing the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the disciplinary committee. The appellant was the acting accountant at Karoi District Hospital. He was charged with failing to take reasonable care of or making improper or unauthorised use of public money. While working in the accounts department, he was accused of withdrawing money from the Health Service Fund without returning it. He was found guilty and fined two months’ salary which would be recovered in four instalments by the Salary Service Bureau. He was also transferred to the Administration Department with... More
On 6 June 2014 this Court dismissed Applicant’s application for interim relief filed in terms of section 92E (3) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]. Applicant seeks to approach the Supreme Court. This is therefore an application in terms of section 92F (1) of the Act. More
This is an application for interim relief made in terms of s 92 E (3) of the Labour Court Act (“the Act”), for the suspension of an order granted by the first respondent.
Before the matter proceeded into the merits, the third respondent raised four points in limineand the applicant raised one point inlimine. This judgment therefore addresses the five points in limine raised by the parties.
The first point in limine raised by the third respondent is that the appellant is barred and cannot approach this court for interim relief since it did not file heads of argument in... More
On 20th March 2014 Applicant filed an application for interim relief in terms of Section 92 E (3) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01]. The application was responded to on 10th April 2014. Both parties filed Heads of Argument and the matter was set down for hearing on 12th May 20-14.
On 5th May 2014 Applicant filed a notice of withdrawal without tendering Respondent’s wasted costs. On the following day Respondent wrote to the Applicant pointing out that the purported withdrawal is defective and gave 48 hours within which Applicant should tender costs failing which the Respondent would pursue the... More
