Four preliminary points were raised for the respondents that the appellants were fugitives from justice they should not be heard, that the grounds of appeal raise procedural issues therefore an application for review should have been made, that the grounds of appeal donot raise questions of law and that the appellant waived their right to appeal. More
- Appellant was in Respondent’s employ as a Trust Plant Manager at the Graniteside Branch.
- By a letter dated the 16th of May, 2014 he was suspended pending investigations into gross acts of misconduct.
- By a letter dated the 21st May 2014, Appellant was advised of a disciplinary hearing on the 28th May, 2014 at 4 pm. The charge was:
“any act, conduct or omission inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of his contract”
In terms of the National Employment Code of Conduct Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006.
- The said letter stated,
“Please... More
The applicant and the third respondent had competing claims over the same mining block, called New Year 89.Both of them had valid registration certificates over it. These had been duly issued by the first respondent, the mining commissioner. The first respondent hadresolved the dispute in favour of the third respondent. The applicant had appealed to the second respondent, the Minister of Mines and Mineral Development. The appeal had been dismissed. The applicant then applied to this court for review. But his application wasout of time. So he applied for condonation. More
This is an appeal against the arbitral award by Honourable J Mateko that was handed down on 4 September 2015. The appellants were employed by the respondent for a period of (9) nine years as security guards. They were then retired after reaching the age of 65 years. They then approached the arbitrator with the claim that they had been unfairly dismissed. The arbitrator dismissed their claim stating that termination was done fairly on retirement. More
This is an application for rescission of judgment. In considering applications of this nature, the court is to consider generally whether or not there has been a reasonable explanation for the default and also whether the applicant has good prospects of success on the merits. More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award wherein the arbitrator found that the respondent had committed minor acts of misconduct and thereafter set aside the penalty of dismissal and ordered the appellant to reinstate the respondent. This aggrieved the appellant. More
This appeal is mainly centred on the interpretation of the phase “effective date” as used by the Arbitrator. Appellant had raised four (4) grounds of appeal but has since abandoned some grounds leaving these two, that: More
