Former Eswatini Mobile chief financial officer (CFO) Enock Dube has dragged his former employer to the Industrial Court challenging the termination of his employment and claiming more than E2.2 million in alleged outstanding payments.
Dube is also seeking reinstatement to his position arguing that the termination of his employment was unlawful and unfair. He said he was employed by Eswatini Mobile as CFO on a permanent basis from October 1, 2022 until June 27, 2025 when he received a formal notification from the company’s chief executive officer (CEO) informing him that his employment would end on June 30, 2025.
The letter dated June 27, 2025 stated that the termination was in line with his employment agreement.
“This letter serves as formal notification that your contract of employment as CFO with Eswatini Mobile will conclude effective June 30, 2025 in accordance with the terms outlined in your employment agreement,” reads part of the letter.
The company further informed Dube that he would receive one month’s salary in lieu of notice together with final remuneration including outstanding leave days and applicable benefits.
“We take this opportunity to sincerely thank you for your dedicated service and the valuable contributions you have made during your tenure. Your leadership and commitment have played a significant role in strengthening our financial operations and governance,” the company stated.
The letter also instructed him to liaise with the people and culture department to complete handover processes and exit formalities before his final working day.
However, Dube argued that the termination was unlawful because he was employed permanently until reaching retirement age. In a letter addressed to the CEO on July 10, 2025, Dube stated that he was employed on a permanent basis and remained entitled to continue working until the age of 63.
“I was employed by Eswatini Mobile on October 1, 2022 in the position of CFO on a permanent basis until the normal retirement age of 63. I am currently 61 years old and therefore entitled to remain employed for two additional years,” Dube said.
He further argued that there was no lawful or contractual basis for terminating his employment.
Dube demanded immediate withdrawal of the termination notice and requested reinstatement to his position without prejudice to his accrued benefits and entitlements.
He warned that failure to comply within five days would result in legal action. “Should you fail to comply with these demands within five days of receipt of this letter, I will seek legal redress,” he added. Despite the dispute, Dube said he remained committed to resolving the matter amicably and preserving the employer-employee relationship.
He alleges that the CEO verbally informed him at the time of termination that he would later be re-engaged as a consultant for six months to train a replacement.
Dube claimed that he subsequently wrote to the company challenging the fairness of the dismissal but received no response. He later reported the matter to the Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration Commission (CMAC). The dispute remained unresolved after conciliation resulting in a certificate of unresolved dispute being issued and the matter proceeding to court.
He had a fixed-term contract – Eswatini Mobile
ESWATINI Mobile has strongly opposed the application and denied that Dube was unfairly dismissed.
In its response before the Industrial Court, the company argued that Dube was not employed permanently but had been appointed on a fixed-term contract beginning July 1, 2020 which was due to expire on June 30, 2025.
“The applicant was employed on a fixed-term basis and the contract of employment expired due to effluxion of time,” the company submitted. Eswatini Mobile said Dube’s employment ended naturally upon expiry of the contract and denied any unlawful dismissal. The company further stated that the notice of termination complied with the employment contract signed by both parties.
While admitting that it offered Dube consultancy work because of the positive working relationship between the parties, Eswatini Mobile claimed he rejected the proposal. “The respondent admits that it did offer to re-engage the applicant on a consultancy basis due to the good work relations it enjoyed with the applicant,” the company stated. The company maintained that the parties separated amicably and that Dube stopped working on the agreed date stipulated in his contract.
Eswatini Mobile also denied receiving Dube’s complaint letter challenging the termination and put him to strict proof that it was delivered. The company insisted that Dube was paid all monies due to him and denied owing the alleged outstanding E2.2 million.
“While the respondent admits paying the applicant an amount of E861 246.15 as part of his package, the Respondent denies that the applicant is owed any balance,” read the response. Eswatini Mobile has asked the Industrial Court to dismiss Dube’s application with costs.
