africa.lawBeta
SearchAsk AICollectionsJudgesCompareMemo
africa.law

Free access to African legal information. Legislation, case law, and regulatory documents from across the continent.

Resources

  • Legislation
  • Gazettes
  • Jurisdictions

Developers

  • API Documentation
  • Bulk Downloads
  • Data Sources
  • GitHub

Company

  • About
  • Contact
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy

Jurisdictions

  • Ghana
  • Kenya
  • Nigeria
  • South Africa
  • Tanzania
  • Uganda

© 2026 africa.law by Bhala. Open legal information for Africa.

Aggregating legal information from official government publications and public legal databases across the continent.

Back to search
Case Law[2018] SZIC 108Eswatini

Hlanze v Patpo Investments (Pty) Ltd (166 of 2018) [2018] SZIC 108 (4 October 2018)

Industrial Court of eSwatini

Judgment

# Hlanze v Patpo Investments (Pty) Ltd (166 of 2018) [2018] SZIC 108 (4 October 2018) [ __](https://api.whatsapp.com/send?text=https://eswatinilii.org/akn/sz/judgment/szic/2018/108/eng@2018-10-04) [ __](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=https://eswatinilii.org/akn/sz/judgment/szic/2018/108/eng@2018-10-04) [ __](https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://eswatinilii.org/akn/sz/judgment/szic/2018/108/eng@2018-10-04) [ __](https://www.linkedin.com/sharing/share-offsite/?url=https://eswatinilii.org/akn/sz/judgment/szic/2018/108/eng@2018-10-04) [ __](mailto:?subject=Take a look at this document from EswatiniLII: Hlanze v Patpo Investments \(Pty\) Ltd \(166 …&body=https://eswatinilii.org/akn/sz/judgment/szic/2018/108/eng@2018-10-04) [ Download DOC (496.5 KB) ](/akn/sz/judgment/szic/2018/108/eng@2018-10-04/source) Toggle dropdown * [Download PDF](/akn/sz/judgment/szic/2018/108/eng@2018-10-04/source.pdf) Report a problem __ * Share * [ Download DOC (496.5 KB) ](/akn/sz/judgment/szic/2018/108/eng@2018-10-04/source) * [Download PDF](/akn/sz/judgment/szic/2018/108/eng@2018-10-04/source.pdf) * * * * * Report a problem __ ##### Hlanze v Patpo Investments (Pty) Ltd (166 of 2018) [2018] SZIC 108 (4 October 2018) Copy citation * __Document detail * __Related documents Citation Hlanze v Patpo Investments (Pty) Ltd (166 of 2018) [2018] SZIC 108 (4 October 2018) Copy Media Neutral Citation [2018] SZIC 108 Copy Court [Industrial Court of eSwatini](/judgments/SZIC/) Case number 166 of 2018 Judges [Nsibande JP](/judgments/all/?judges=Nsibande%20JP) Judgment date 4 October 2018 Language English Court Roll [Download PDF](/akn/sz/judgment/szic/2018/108/eng@2018-10-04/attachment/hlanze-v-patpo-investments-pty-ltd-2018-szic-108-4-october-2018.pdf) (195.1 KB) * * * Skip to document content _**IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF ESWATINI**_ Case No. 166/18 In the matter between: **ZAMOKUHLE HLANZE** Applicant **And** **PATPO INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD** **t/a THUTHUKA BUTCHERY** Respondent **Neutral citation:** Zamokuhle Hlanze v Patpo Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Thuthuka Butchery _(166/2018)_[2018]_SZIC 108_(05 October 2018) **Coram: S. NSIBANDE JP** (Sitting with Nominated Members of the Court Mr N. Manana and Mr M. Dlamini) **Heard:** 02 October 2018 **Delivered:** 05 October 2018 _**RULING**_ [1] The Applicant seeks an order that the unresolved dispute between himself and the Respondent be referred to the Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration Commission (CMAC) for arbitration in accordance with **Section 85 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act 2000 as amended**. [2] The Applicant claims an amount of E26 308. 62 (Twenty-six thousand three hundred and eight emalangeni, sixty two cents) in respect of terminal benefits and compensation for unfair dismissal on the basis that she was substantively and procedurally dismissed. The Applicant claims that there was no proof of the commission of the offences that she was accused of and that although the changes were dismissed when a ruling in her favour was made by the Chairman of the hearing, the Respondent continued with the hearing and dismissed her. She further claims to have been denied her right to appeal. [3] The application before Court is not opposed as there was no appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent. Nevertheless, the President of the Court, is enjoined to consider whether or the circumstances of the matter is one suited to be referred to arbitration. [4] The facts of this matter appear not to be complicated and the claim is not substantial even for a butchery business. I envisage that there may be disputes of fact with regard to what happened after the initial charges were dismissed by the disciplinary hearing Chairman and whether the Applicant gave up her right to be heard at the disciplinary hearing by not attending and whether she appealed out of time. My view though is that it should not be too difficult to resolve the answers there to are based on written documents new change sheet (as alleged by the Respondent etc) [5] In the circumstances I direct that the unresolved dispute between the parties be referred to arbitration under the auspices of CMAC. **I make no order as to costs**. **For the Applicant:** Mr M. Manana **For the Respondent:** No appearance 3 #### __Related documents ▲ To the top >

Similar Cases

Ngwenya v Mkhayakudze Investments (176 of 2018) [2018] SZIC 107 (8 October 2018)
[2018] SZIC 107Industrial Court of eSwatini84% similar
Hlanze v United Plantations (swaziland) Limited T/a Tambuti Estate (43 of 2020) [2022] SZIC 87 (12 July 2022)
[2022] SZIC 87Industrial Court of eSwatini80% similar
Ngwenya v High Point Farm (Pty) Ltd (21 of 2018) [2019] SZICA 206 (2 May 2019)
[2019] SZICA 206Industrial Court of Appeal of eSwatini79% similar
Hlanze v Swaziland Dairy Board [1998] SZICA 5 (31 August 1998)
[1998] SZICA 5Industrial Court of Appeal of eSwatini79% similar
Ntshakala v Lomdashi Investments (PTY) LTD and other (790 of 2020) [2024] SZHC 269 (31 July 2024)
[2024] SZHC 269High Court of eSwatini79% similar

Discussion