Debswana ordered to pay former employee half a million Pula

| Friday August 1, 2014 15:58

 

Judge Lord Arthur Hamilton when handing judgment yesterday initially dismissed the company’s main appeal. The company had challenged the High Court’s decision and dismissed its application for the postponement of the trial.

He, however, ordered that the case be remitted back to court for the sake of determining other claims that the former employee had wanted but was not entered in a judgment by the High Court Judge.

The company lost its case on default at the High Court in August 2005 and was demanded to pay P435,650 for the long-standing dispute with its former employee. Gaetsole had dragged the company to court under four claims that totaled P649,650.

Although the judge entered a default judgment only under two first claims substantive unpaid remuneration and of acting allowance as the last two claims were not determined.

He had issued the company with a writ of summons in which he claimed sums of money under four heads of acting allowances totaling P18,480, substantive unpaid remuneration of P40,000, P174,000 annual performance bonus for 2004 and retention bonus of P174,000.

“The case be remitted back to court for the purpose of proceeding with determination of the last two claims of annual performance bonus and the retention bonus,” Hamilton said.

He explained that the company would still pay the former employee the first amount of P435,650 while the court will determine the last two claims that the judge did not enter in his judgment.

“By entering final judgment against the company in respect of claim one and two, it was clear that the judge carefully considered the whole circumstances before him, including the history of the litigation, and the significance of the discovery production to the just determination of the relevant issues,” he said.

He further said the company had the idea that the former employee set out the factual and contractual bases for his first two claims of Group Financial Manger and Group Management Accountant, which were vacant for a period of time and the employee held temporarily.

The company’s senior lawyer from South Africa Owen Cook had earlier in the month argued that the case for the four claims should be remitted back to court as his minor ground for the main application.

Cook had argued that proceeding to the trial without certain documents that they wanted to prepare would have prejudiced their case, adding that evidence may emerge at the trial from witnesses relevant to all the issues that may prove that the former employee was not entitled to the claims.