Dlamini vs. Central Bank of Eswatini and Another (279/2022) [2023] SZIC 38 (9 October 2023)

# Dlamini vs. Central Bank of Eswatini and Another (279/2022) [2023] SZIC 38 (9 October 2023) [ __](https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=https://eswatinilii.org/akn/sz/judgment/szic/2023/38/eng@2023-10-09) [ __](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=https://eswatinilii.org/akn/sz/judgment/szic/2023/38/eng@2023-10-09) [ __](https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://eswatinilii.org/akn/sz/judgment/szic/2023/38/eng@2023-10-09) [ __](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https://eswatinilii.org/akn/sz/judgment/szic/2023/38/eng@2023-10-09) [ __](mailto:?subject=Take a look at this document from EswatiniLII: Dlamini vs. Central Bank of Eswatini and …&body=https://eswatinilii.org/akn/sz/judgment/szic/2023/38/eng@2023-10-09) [ Download PDF (229.2 KB) ](/akn/sz/judgment/szic/2023/38/eng@2023-10-09/source) Report a problem __ * Share * [ Download PDF (229.2 KB) ](/akn/sz/judgment/szic/2023/38/eng@2023-10-09/source) * * * * * Report a problem __ ##### Dlamini vs. Central Bank of Eswatini and Another (279/2022) [2023] SZIC 38 (9 October 2023) Copy citation * __Document detail * __Related documents Citation Dlamini vs. Central Bank of Eswatini and Another (279/2022) [2023] SZIC 38 (9 October 2023) Copy Media Neutral Citation [2023] SZIC 38 Copy Hearing date 9 October 2023 Court [Industrial Court of eSwatini](/judgments/SZIC/) Case number 279/2022 Judges [Dlamini J](/judgments/all/?judges=Dlamini%20J) Judgment date 9 October 2023 Language English * * * Skip to document content Applicant filed an urgent application against the Respondents seeking an order staying the judgment of the court pending an appeal noted by him at the Industrial Court of Appeal. The impugned decision of the Court held that one of three disciplinary charges preferred against the Applicant was not time-barred. The basis of the appeal is that since the court held that the three charges were connected, it should have found that all the charges were time-barred because the upheld charge emanated from the defimct charges. ]'' Respondent opposed the application and contended that the requirements of the grant of a stay were not established. Principally, the ]'' Respondent argued that the appeal lacked prospects of success and was frivolous because it impugned factual findings of the court. #### __Related documents ▲ To the top >