26. Applicant's case was indeed enrolled in the Industrial Relations Court of Malawi. The court had to consider whether the Applicant's dismissal was unfair in that it was for no valid reason and whether he had been given the opportunity ike heard. As the Appliicant’s dismissal was before the enactment of the Employment Act 2000, the Court dealt with the matter on the basis of section 43 of the Constitution which, as stated earlier, provided for the right to fair labour practice. The court went into the history of the matter; it held that the Applicant had refused to attend a meeting called by his superior to discuss students’ complaints, that he failed to adapt or change his teaching methods, and that he had been found to be incompetent; that, by 30 November 1999 when his dismissal was recommended, he had dismissal on 2 December not 1999. shown any improvement, hence his Furthermore, the court held that the Applicant had been afforded the opportunity to be heard; in this respect, the following appears in the last paragraph of page 4 of the judgment of that Court: ‘It was heard in the instant case that the applicant was invited to appear before the Vice-Chancellor to answer to his failure to improve following warning. The hearing was fair as far as the right fo be heard in administrative setting is concerned. What was important was that at the time of the hearing the applicant was free to state his case and put in his defence. to dismiss and the dismissal itself came applicant was consideration, stil on probation. The decision after the hearing. All factors taken The into this court finds no compelling reason to interfere with the sanction imposed ...”.—¢