The facts in this case are largely common cause. Respondent was employed by the appellant. Following respondent’s termination of employment by appellant, the dispute between the parties ended up in arbitration. The issue before the arbitrator was to determine whether respondent was owed by the appellant in unpaid salaries. The arbitrator found in favour of the respondent. Appellant has appealed to this court. More
This is an application for condonation for late filing of an application for rescission of default judgment that was granted by this court on 19 March 2015. It was granted in terms of Rule 22. The applicant failed to give a reasonable explanation for failing to file a response to the appeal that had been filed by the respondents. More
The brief facts of this matter are that appellant was employed as a tyre fitter. On 30 March 2015 he was found working on a vehicle tightening the tyres with a wrench. He had been forbidden to use the wrench on the nuts. Appellant then appeared before a disciplinary committee charged with contravening Part III of the Unifreight Code of Conduct and Grievance Procedure Part 3, 3.5 i.e. More
This is an application for leave to appeal against my judgment to the Supreme Court.
In that judgment, I found that the applicant who had been absent from work from 14 January 2009 to 23 February 2009 had been absent without leave and reasonable excuse. More
This is an application for interim relief pending the finalisation of the appeal.
Ms Mberi submitted that the applicant served the respondent with the notice of application on 11 September 2015 and proof of service was filed with the court. The respondent had not filed any response to the application. She further submitted that in the absence of such a response from the respondent, the court should grant the application. Ms Mberi further stated that the arbitrator had erred in holding that the matter had not prescribed and also in not finding that the respondent had repudiated his contract by... More
This is an appeal against an arbitral award handed down on 22 April 2015, in terms of which the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent a total sum of US$25 500-00 as overtime.
The basic facts of this matter are common cause. The respondent was employed by the appellant as a Stock Controller. He held this position from March 2011 to November 2014, when he was dismissed from employment for misconduct. The circumstances leading to his dismissal are not the subject of this case.It suffices to state that after his dismissal, he lodged a complaint of non-payment of overtime,... More
