SUMMARY

Application for rescission – The Respondent having been dismissed from work by the 1st Applicant – The 1st Applicant having been the Principal Secretary of the 3rd Applicant – The 4th Applicant having been the lawful representative of the Applicants – The Respondent having instituted an application for review against her dismissal on the ground of having been irregularly conducted – The Applicants having not answered the application but proposed a settlement – The Applicants having not appeared before Court on the date scheduled for submission of the deed of settlement – The proposed deed of settlement not having brought before Court – The time for filing answering affidavit having been elapsed – The Court having granted the application as prayed for in the Notice of Motion – The Applicants having consequently instituted the present application for rescission through a counsel working for the 3rd Applicant. 

Held:

1. The counsel for the Applicants have no authority to represent them since his letter of appointment refers to a different case from the one before Court;
2. The Applicants failed to establish the elements for the application for rescission;
3. The application for rescission is dismissed with costs at an attorney and client scale. 

SUMMARY

The Applicant invoked the review powers of this Court asking it to declare the decision of the Minister in which he declined to renew his contract as the CEO of the 5th Respondent to be unlawful for being in conflict with Section 9B of the LNDC Act. He reasoned that the section compelled the Minister to follow the recommendation of the Board for the renewal of the contract.  A controversy ensued between the parties on the jurisdiction of the Court over the matter.  The Court held that the legislative exclusivity of jurisdiction of the labour courts over labour related matters, cannot exclude its inherent unlimited competency to review the decision and that its administrative nature also gave it the jurisdiction.         

Summary

Suspension of a chief executive officer and removal of the chairperson of the LCA board of directors by the Minister of Communications – characterization of the decision - whether it amounts to administrative action - original jurisdiction of the Labour Appeal Court in terms of Section 38(A) of the Labour Code (amendment) Act 2000

                                                   SUMMARY

EMPLOYMENT LAW: Applicant claiming salary arrears for the period of her absence from work on account of having been dismissed unfairly- Held, applicant entitled to salary arrears as her absence from work was attributable to the employer’s conduct.

SUMMARY

High   Court– labour and constitutional jurisdiction– claim for renewal of fixed term contracts or alternatively, declarator that failure to renew contracts violates rights to property in the form of salary – fixed term contracts having expired automatically – clauses in contracts stipulating that resolution of disputes thereof to be made in accordance with the Labour Code – Appeal dismissed on account of jurisdiction.

SUMMARY

When re-instatement is ordered as a remedy for urgent dismissal, the employer must re-employ the dismissed employee as the first step. Secondly, the employee is entitled to receive payments that she would have been entitled to if the unfair dismissed had not occurred.

Principal Secretary and Commissioner of Mines giving assurance that the Respondent study leave will be approved- Their successors charging the respondent for absenteeism and dismissing her without a hearing- an individual must be heard before a decision which will adversely affect him/her is made.