Applicants applied to this Court for the reinstatement of an abandoned matter. The application is provided for by Rule 36 of the Labour Court Rules, 2017. Respondent opposed the application. More
The appellants were employed in various capacities. They were retrenched on 28 July 2021. The appellants challenged the retrenchment on the basis that the retrenchment process was unlawful as they were retrenched by a non-existent entity. Martindale Catholic Primary School which retrenched them was not their employer and it had no right to retrench them. Martindale Primary School was registered under the name; Little Children of our Blessed Lady Sisters. It was argued that Little Children of our Blessed Lady Sisters ought to have retrenched them and not Martindale Catholic Primary School. More
This is an opposed application for rei vindicatio aimed at recovering the Applicants’ assets namely an undivided 16.66% share identified as Share Number 1 in a piece of land located in the District of Salisbury, known as the Remainder of Stand 926 Salisbury Township, covering 500 square metres and held under Deed of Transfer 1148/89 in the Respondents’ possession. More
This is an application challenging the constitutional validity of s 28 (2) of Reconstruction of State Indebted Insolvent Companies Act [Chapter 24:27], (“the Reconstruction Act”). The said provision expressly removes employees or former employees of a company falling under the Reconstruction Act (of which the third respondent is one) from the protection afforded by the Labour Act [chapter 28:01]. More
The brief background of this matter is that the applicant was employed by the respondent as a finance manager and director for 18 years. He was dismissed from employment in February 2023, he then appealed against the dismissal before one Arbitrator W.T. Pasipanodya who ruled in his favour and ordered his reinstatement without loss of salary and benefits. The respondent then appealed to the Labour Court but the appeal was dismissed, there were subsequent applications for appeal and leave to appeal by respondent however they were dismissed. The applicant then obtained a judgment in his favour under judgment No LCH... More
On 14 March 2023, the Supreme Court set aside this Court’s judgment and made the following Order:
“1. The appeal be and is hereby allowed with costs.
2. The judgment of the court a quo be and is hereby set aside and substituted with the appeal be and is hereby allowed. More
DEMBURE J: This matter was placed before me as a court application to compel transfer of an immovable property into the applicant’s name. On 5 March 2025, the court issued an ex tempore judgment the operative part of which read as follows:
“The application be and is hereby dismissed with costs on a legal practitioner and client scale.”
On 10 March 2025, the applicant’s legal practitioners requested the written reasons for the court’s decision. What follows are the full written reasons thereof. More
