This matter was referred to me in terms of section 89 (2)(a)(i) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (hereafter called the Act) for determination on the record. More
This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. This Court on 25 November 2015 made an order dismissing the applicant’s appeal. The applicant noted an application for leave to appeal within the requisite thirty day period but that was done beforethe reasons for the judgmentwere handed down. More
This is an appeal against the decision of the arbitrator where he ruled that the appellant employee had been rightly found guilty of theft and dismissed from employment. Facts of the matter are that appellant who was in the respondent’s employ was sent to bank respondent’s cash. He was however handed back R10000 of the money he had taken to the bank. The teller however recorded that the full amount of R32000 had been banked yet R10000 had gotten back to appellant. More
The first, second and third respondents opposed the application on the grounds that, firstly, in limine, it was not urgent, it failed to disclose material facts and therefore sought to mislead the court and finally that it was fatally defective for failing to comply with the rules. Secondly, on the merits, the respondents argued that the review being sought has no merit as the fourth respondent acted properly in dismissing applicant’s ex parte application, no act of spoliation has in fact been committed as the first and second respondents have filed a complaint in terms Gazetted Lands (Consequential Provisions) Act... More
The brief background to the matter has to be put into perspective. The applicants, were served with summons on 2 August 2010 in which the first respondent claimed payment of an amount of $30 000.00. The applicants entered appearance to defend and filed their plea within the dice inducia. The plea was filed on 28 March 2012, Annexure C p 51. On 18 August 2015 the first respondent made an application to join in third and fourth respondent, which application was successful. The third and fourth respondents filed their pleas. The first respondent requested the first and second applicants to... More
This is an appeal against a determination of the disciplinary authority/hearing officer of the respondent.
The appellant was employed by the respondent and was responsible for the weighbridge when it was alleged that he had been collecting money from weighbridge customers and had converted some of the money to his own use on 30 July 2014. He was then charged in terms of section 4 (a) and (d) of Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006 being “any act of conduct or omission inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of his contract” and “theft or fraud” respectively More
