COURT ISSUED WRONG JUDGMENT - MAGUDVULELA

MBABANE – Senator Prince Magudvulela Dlamini insists that the Industrial Court made findings in his favour but issued a judgment outside of what he wanted.

This was in the matter in which he took his former employer, Eswatini Electricity Company (EEC), which was ordered to compensate him E71 112, which was four months’ salary.

The company stopped the payment of his salary after he was appointed to Senate in 2008. EEC stopped issuing his salary in 2009.  The prince, who is also a chief, wanted the court to order EEC to compensate him his arrear salary amounting to E266 670, which was for the period from January 2009 to March 2010.   He appealed the decision and applied for condontion for late filing of the appeal. The Industrial Court of Appeal found that the prince chose the ‘wrong horse for the course.’

Prince Magudvulela has now approached the High Court where he filed an application to review the initial decision of the Industrial Court ordering EEC to compensate him the equivalent of four months instead of 13 months.

He argued that the Industrial Court allegedly made unequivocal decisive findings in the matter in his favour but went on to issue a contrary ruling.
The veracity of these allegations is still to be tested in court. Respondents are the judge who heard the matter in the Industrial Court, the members he sat with and EEC. According to the prince, the Industrial Court made findings to the effect that EEC was the first to breach the terms of employment relationship between the parties by stopping his salary without consultation.

The court also stated that EEC created an environment in which it would be impossible for the prince to fulfil his contractual duties to his then employer.
The court noted that EEC could not successfully argue that it was not obliged to pay him his arrear salary because he was not reporting for duty.
The judgment further stated that Prince Magudvulela did not report for duty because of EEC’s unlawful conduct of unilaterally stopping his salary.
The prince said this was the first unequivocal decisive finding the court made in his favour.

“In short, the court was with me in my submissions that there was a breach of contract and that I was entitled to be paid my arrear salaries for the period of 13 months due to the respondent’s (EEC) own unlawful conduct,” he said.

Favour

Prince Magudvulela also submitted that further in the judgment, the Industrial Court made the finding in his favour to the effect that; “There is no doubt to the court that there was unfair labour practice in the manner that applicant (prince) was treated by respondent.” According to the prince, the court also found that he was not consulted by EEC prior to his salary being stopped and that his former employer relied on a policy that was not yet operational as there was no evidence that it had been approved and adopted at that time.

The prince argued that the conduct of the company was discriminatory as it did not treat his appointment of Chief Ndzameya in a like manner, the court found, according to the prince. “The court then ultimately made an order which was in direct contrast to the decisive findings which I have alluded to and quoted above.

“It is this remarkable contrast between the findings of the court and the ultimate order which is so grossly unreasonable that has necessitated this application before court, in that the inference that the court failed to properly apply its mind cannot be avoided.”
The prince argued that the compensation of four months’ salary was patent error of law which allegedly amounts to misdirection by the court.

He said the alleged misdirection by the court rendered the order unreasonable in that it cannot be reconciled with the findings which he said were decisive.
Prince Magudvulela argued that patent error of law, which is a glaring misdirection by the court, is a ground which warrants that the High Court reviews and sets aside the judgment of the Industrial Court.

The prince informed the court that the appropriate order that should have been issued by the court should have been that he be compensated for the duration of the whole 13 months (E266 670) which he had claimed due to breach of contract.
“In the premise, I am entitled to my arrear salaries, moreso in line with the judgments and labour authorities cited in the court a quo in line with my claim that I am entitled to be paid for the 13 months that I claimed.”

Misdirection

He said the alleged misdirection by the Industrial Court was a justified basis for the High Court to intervene, review and set aside the court order.
The prince submitted that there was no need to remit the matter back to the Industrial Court because the findings it made on the merits were correct and only required being reconciled with an appropriate award of compensation which is for 13 months, not four.

Sitting in the Industrial Court of Appeal, Judge Cyril Maphanga said the enquiry as to whether the prince was entitled to the compensation for the period between January 2009 and March 2010 “was a serious misdirection, at variance with the court’s own findings on the merits. It has a jarring effect that can scarcely be reconciled with the body of the judgment.”

Judge Maphanga said having so ruled, the Industrial Court fell into error when it purported to reopen the enquiry and made the order for a reduced amount of the claim for the withheld remuneration.
The matter is pending in court.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: