It is essential to relate the facts in some detail. Applicant is an engineer by qualification who was employed by the Third Respondent as a Director of Engineering Services. Applicant was suspended from employment in February 2021 on allegations that the quality and quantity of water had deteriorated. Charges were preferred against the Applicant and he was brought before a Disciplinary Committee which found him guilty and recommended his dismissal. Applicant’s appeal did not meet the desired result. More
On the 10th of October 2020, the Appellant entered into a 5-year employment contract with the Respondent as an Assistant Project Manager. The contract was supposed to subsist from 10th October 2020 to 30th September 2025. On the 6th of February 2023, the Appellant received a letter of termination of his employment contract from the Respondent. The letter gave the Appellant only two weeks’ notice. On 23rd March 2023, the Appellant through his legal practitioners, wrote in response to the Respondent. He indicated that the notice period was unlawful as it fell short of the 3 months demanded by the... More
This civil trial matter was heard on 7 March 2025. The first and second defendants raised a point of law that the matter is res judicata in that there is a prior extant court order that settled the issue of ownership of the property in question. It was argued that the trial cannot be held to determine the same issue already determined by this court. It was further argued in the alternative that the matter is moot and the court ought to decline to exercise its jurisdiction over the matter. After hearing oral submissions from the parties’ legal practitioners, the... More
The appellant appeals against conviction and sentence. He was convicted after a trial on three (3) counts of stock theft and failure to comply with conditions of his firearm certificate in contravention of s114 (2) (a) of the Criminal Law [Codification and Reform] Act (Chapter 9:23) and the Firearms Act (Chapter 10:09) respectively. More
This is an appeal against the whole judgment of the High Court (the ‘court a quo’) handed down on 2 April 2024 under judgment number HH 139/24. The court a quo dismissed the appellant’s application for condonation of failure to file an application for the rescission of a default judgment within the permitted time. More
This matter was enrolled as an urgent application. The parties appeared for the hearing of the matter on an urgent basis. The applicant did not address the court on the question of urgency. He went straight to deal with the merits of his application. The known approach is that the court will rule as to the urgent or otherwise of the matter. Upon it being ruled to be urgent, the matter will then be heard on the merits. If it is not ruled to be urgent, the matter will be referred to the ordinary roll and will have its day... More
This is an appeal against the determination of the Acting Chief Executive Officer, sitting as an Appeals Authority dated 11th March, 2024.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a cashier. Appellant was suspended on 19th February, 2024. He was later charged with the offence of “Gross Negligence” under S.I 42 of 2022 offence 2.3.1. The Appellant was called for a hearing on the 22nd of February and Appellant was duly acquitted of the charge having been found not guilty. The Respondent appealed against the ruling to the C.E.O who in turn set aside the finding made... More
