PRINCE MAGUDVULELA LOSES APPEAL ON SALARY ARREARS

MBABANE – Senator Prince Magudvulela has lost his appeal against his award of four months arrear salary ‘because he chose the wrong horse for the course’.

He wanted Eswatini Electricity Company, where he was employed when he was appointed into Senate in 2008, to pay his arrear salaries for the period of January 2009 up to March 2010.

The prince, who is also a chief, also wanted the money to be calculated at the monthly rate of E17 778.00 to the sum of E266 670. He was employed as a training officer at EEC.

Yesterday, the Industrial Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Industrial Court which ordered that he be paid arrear salaries for a period of four months - January 2009 to April 2009.
After his appointment into Senate, the Industrial Court found that EEC placed him on unpaid leave for the duration of his tenure in Parliament.
The court also found that he was wrongfully suspended or withheld his remuneration. Judge Nkosinathi Nkonyane further found that the prince did not render his services due to the conduct of his then employer.

The appeal was heard by Judge Cyril Maphanga, who sat with Judges Titus Mlangeni and Doris Tshabalala.
Judge 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’.

Error

Judge Maphanga said having so ruled, the 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.
“In my view, the order given by the court for the compensation comprising four months arrear salary is so jarring and incompatible with the rest of the judgment so that it in effect contradicts the substance of the main judgment on the merits as regards the main relief.

“It is clearly a patent error manifest on the face of the judgment attributable to the court itself. I am left in no doubt that he was on viable grounds and in principle, the applicant (prince) has shown more than ample prospects were that avenue available to him.” The judge further said the appeal was not a course open to the chief at this stage and that the appeal court was not the appropriate forum.

Post your comment

Your name:

Your e-mail address:

Add your comments:

Please enter the code you see in the image:

Image:

Code: