The Eswatini Medical Christian University (EMCU) has appealed a judgment of the Industrial Court ordering it to reinstate the Vice Chancellor within three days or have its Registrar face arrest.
The institution through its lawyers argued that its Vice Chancellor Paul Seung-Hun Yang was not dismissed but voluntarily resigned from his position.
According to a notice of appeal filed at the Industrial Court of Appeal, the university and two senior officials are seeking to overturn the judgment delivered on May 19, 2026, under case number 426/2025.
The university is cited as the first appellant, while Council Chairman Boy Bongani Dlamini is the second appellant and Registrar and Acting Vice Chancellor Sebenta Menon is the third appellant.
In the notice of appeal filed in terms of Section 19 of the Industrial Relations Act, the appellants stated that they were dissatisfied with the entire judgment and order of the Industrial Court.
The appellants argued that the Industrial Court erred in law by allegedly expanding the scope of an interim order that had previously been granted in the matter.
According to the appeal, the interim order merely suspended the termination of employment and did not prohibit administrative measures or the temporary delegation of functions within the university.
“The Court erred in law in impermissibly expanding the scope of the interim order and interpreting the interim order as extending beyond the mere suspension of termination of employment,” reads part of the notice of appeal.
The university further argued that the court erred in concluding that the respondent’s employment had been terminated while allegedly ignoring what it described as a voluntary resignation by the Vice Chancellor.
In another ground of appeal, the appellants challenged the contempt ruling issued by the Industrial Court, particularly the order directing them to comply with the judgment within three days or face imprisonment.
The appellants argued that the court failed to give them an opportunity to purge the contempt or show cause why they should not be committed to gaol.
They stated that this violated the audi alteram partem rule, a legal principle requiring parties to be heard before adverse action is taken against them.
The appellants also submitted that the court erred in finding them in contempt while allegedly overlooking the absence of intention to defy the court order.
According to the notice of appeal, the respondent “remained employed” and no dismissal had occurred, while administrative actions linked to the respondent’s resignation were allegedly treated incorrectly as termination of employment.
The university further argued that the court erred in finding wilful and mala fide non-compliance with the interim order.
The appellants submitted that their conduct had been based on a bona fide interpretation of the interim order and on legal advice they had received.
They also argued that the court erred both in law and fact by deciding disputed factual issues on affidavit evidence.
In addition, the appellants challenged the manner in which the Industrial Court handled their counter-application.
According to the appeal, the appellants had sought dismissal of the principal proceedings and discharge of the interim order on the basis that the respondent had allegedly failed to prosecute the main application after obtaining interim relief on December 30, 2025.
The appellants argued that the court failed to properly determine the counter-application and also failed to determine whether the interim order should continue indefinitely.
They further contended that the court disposed of the counter-application by invoking the doctrine of “unclean hands” instead of adjudicating the matter on its merits.
The university and its co-appellants also challenged the punitive costs order granted by the Industrial Court, arguing that the court erred both in law and fact in awarding such costs.
In the notice of appeal, the appellants are seeking an order from the Industrial Court of Appeal setting aside the judgment of the Industrial Court.
They are also asking the appellate court to dismiss the contempt proceedings, discharge the interim order, and order the respondent to pay costs.
Discussion about this post