Ãå±±½ûµØ

The Tribunal did not agree with the Respondent that the actions of the Applicant as seen on the video footages were sufficient to rise to the required standard of proof of clear and convincing evidence to establish stealing; but found that the actions of the Applicant after he left with the shopping bag and the glaring inconsistencies in his testimony clearly pointed to a level of dishonesty betraying guilty knowledge that he did not pay for the items at issue. In other words, the Applicant knew that he did not pay for certain items especially after he, a career security officer, was accosted...

The fact that the application was filed on 25 June 2019, a day after the deadline, was not disputed. The contested decision was sent to the Applicant on 25 March 2019, though he maintained that he saw it on 26 March 2019. Even if the Applicant considered 26 March 2019 to have been the date of receipt of the contested decision, the deadline for filing the application would still have been Monday, 24 June 2019. The argument that the Respondent should be considered to have consented to the jurisdiction of the Court since he failed to raise the jurisdictional challenge in time was found to be...

The Applicant consistently admitted that the verbal and physical altercation took place and that he damaged the officer’s umbrella. He only challenged the investigation process which he maintained was biased and unfair since it didn’t consider the context of the interaction. He also complained that the most pertinent aspects of the case which were caught on video were never provided to him and he therefore didn’t speak to them in the context of the investigation. Since the Applicant did not deny that he was involved in a verbal and physical altercation with a Kenyan police officer and that he...