This is an appeal against the decision of the Institute Board to dismiss the appellant from employment.
The brief history of this matter is that appellant a lecturer in the Pharmaceutical Technology department around August 2015 started conducting lectures for two foreign students from Namibia without the requisite authorisation. He made the students to pay $200 for the ten lessons he delivered to them. He was charged for contravening Section 9:4:2 of the Disciplinary and Grievance Handling Procedural which reads that
“Any act of conduct or omission inconsistent of the express or implied conditions of his contract.” More
This matter came before me on 8th November 2013 for the Application for Condonation for late noting of appeal. Respondent raised a point in limine in that Applicant had not complied with the Rules of the Court and as a result Applicant should be barred in terms of Rule 19 (1). Respondent further stated that the Court should proceed in terms of Rule 28 (6) (b) as Applicant had not filed Heads of Argument in compliance with the Rules. More
The matter was reserved to enable me to consider whether the respondent who had failed to file a notice of response in terms of the Labour Court rules, 2006, had shown good cause for his failure to file a response.
Initially the respondent had requested the court to postpone the matter to enable then to pursue an application for condonation and up lifting of the bar that was operating against then. The court did not agree that the postponement would serve any useful purpose. The court advised the applicant that the matter would proceed in terms of rule 22 (a)... More
This is an appeal against the decision of the works council appeals committee which upheld appellant’s dismissal following fraud allegations in breach of the respondent’s code of conduct. More
The appellant was employed as an extension officer under “Agritex” which is a department of the 3rd respondent.
His duties included working with rural communities and involved communications with the various office holders there. During the course of his duties, “inputs” or tools to empower farmers were distributed. The local councillors were responsible for the distribution of these inputs. At the conclusion of one such distribution the local councillor gave appellant a 50 kilogram bag of fertilizer known as “Compound D”. This was a token of appreciation. Investigations into the distribution of the inputs revealed this. He admits this and... More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court at instance of the applicant employee following this court’s decision to allow the appeal noted by the respondent employer in a labour case pitting it and the applicant.
Basic facts of the matter are that respondent approached the Labour Court on appeal after the applicant had been reinstated to his original position at work after his dismissal by respondent on misconduct allegations in contravention of the Respondent Code of Conduct. More
