It pronounced at p 7 of the cyclostyled judgment that: In Nyahora v CFI Holdings (Pvt) Ltd, supra, the Supreme Court ruled that the exclusive jurisdiction conferred by s 89(6) relates only to the hearing and determination, in the first instance, of any application, appeal or matter referred to in Subsection (1) of s 89 of the Labour Act. Instead she has remained clinging on a thread in the form of a statement in the letter of dismissal which can mean nothing other than that she was entitled to retain the property while she exhausted the domestic remedies of appeal to the appeals committee of the applicant. One would have expected the respondent to capitulate after the Labour Court dismissed her appeal on 23 July 2013 and the Supreme Court authoritatively determined the issues she relied upon in Nyahora v CFI Holdings (Pvt) Ltd S-81/14 (as yet unreported), a judgment delivered on 23 October 2014.
The applicant could only claim its property after the completion of the Labour Court challenge.
She also made the point that she had appealed to the Labour Court against her dismissal which appeal is still pending. The respondent has opposed the application and in her opposing affidavit she raised the issue that this court has no jurisdiction over the matter which is a purely labour dispute to be determined exclusively by the Labour Court in terms of s 89(6) of the Labour Act.
#LOST JUDGMENT CASINO REGISTRATION#
The applicant has made this application seeking an order compelling the respondent, its former employee to surrender its property given to her for use in the discharge of her duties as an employee, an Isuzu KB 280 motor vehicle registration number AAL 8011 and a white house at Montclair Hotel and Casino, Juliasdale Nyanga, she having lost her employment. Of course, not a single legal authority was cited to sustain what appears to be an extremely frivolous defence. As no such letter was issued the respondent has a claim of right over the property. Mr Makoni who appeared for the respondent submitted that after the respondent’s appeal to the appeals committee was unsuccessful the applicant should have issued another letter to the respondent extinguishing the right of possession conferred upon her by the letter of dismissal. The respondent has latched onto that part of the letter which she has interpreted to mean that she is entitled to retain possession of the employer’s property as long as she is appealing the dismissal. You are reminded to surrender all company property in your possession”. If you are not appealing against this determination, your terminal dues if any will be processed and paid to you. “Please be advised that if you are not satisfied with the decision of the disciplinary committee you have a right to appeal to the appeals committee within seven (7) working days of this hearing. I have to quote the relevant portion of the letter of dismissal because it is the only basis upon which the respondent thinks she is entitled to hold onto the property of the applicant: She was found guilty and on 19 April 2012 her employment contract was terminated.
On 17 April 2012, the respondent appeared before an internal disciplinary committee facing two counts of misconduct. The respondent was employed by the applicant as its General Manager. MATHONSI J: Just from where do former employees think they derive the authority to hold on to property belonging to a former employer given to them for use during the subsistence of the contract of employment in the discharge of their duties as employees, after they have lost employment? This matter is one of several of its nature which are now finding their way to the courts with alarming frequency of late where a dismissed employee would simply not surrender the employer’s property but would cling to it as if life itself depends on it.