Abstract

It is a fact that the introduction of labour courts in some developing African countries was a case of need. Others subjectively concentrate on issues of jurisdiction and status which is why they define the labour court as an ad hoc tribunal or an administrative agency and so should be restricted to that status, as an outgrowth of the Executive. The major culprit is the senior courts of law and record. Historically, this may be because at establishment, the labour courts were not provided for as senior courts of record in the constitutions. A simple explanation is that at independence, the post-colonial governments retained much of the constitution around which independence was negotiated. During those early days, there was no industrialisation and mass formal employment and therefore no serious labour disputes that might have threatened the stability of the state. The proponents of exclusion of Labour Courts (LC) or Industrial Courts (IC) contend that “By “courts†is meant the courts of civil judicature and by “tribunal†is meant those bodies of men who are appointed to resolve controversies arising from certain special laws----Certain special matters go before tribunals and the residue goes to the ordinary courts of civil judicature.

How to Cite
KODZO-BEDIAKU NTUMY, Emmanuel. Labour Dispute Resolution in Botswana: Mapping a Boundary between Labour Courts and Collective Judicial Responsibility.. Global Journal of Human-Social Science Research, [S.l.], aug. 2016. ISSN 2249-460X. Available at: <https://socialscienceresearch.org/index.php/GJHSS/article/view/1782>. Date accessed: 21 sep. 2019.