Following that the Industrial Court ordered the reinstatement of Eswatini Medical Christian University (EMCU) Vice Chancellor Paul Seung-Hun Yang in three days, the institution has approached the Industrial Court of Appeal challenging the order.
The order to reinstate the VC to his position and a return to the learning institution was issued on Tuesday. The three days as ordered by the court elapses today.
Yesterday, seeing that EMCU can be charged with contempt of court, it approached the Industrial Court of Appeal in a bid to overturn the Tuesday judgment.
EMCU was cited as the first appellant, together with Boy Bongani Dlamini and Sebenta Menon who filed a notice of appeal challenging the entire judgment and order handed down by the Industrial Court on May 19.
The appellants argued that the Industrial Court wrongly interpreted an interim order by extending its meaning beyond the suspension of termination of employment.
According to the appeal, the order only prevented termination and did not prohibit administrative measures or temporary delegation of duties.
They further contended that the court erred in concluding that Yang’s employment had been terminated; instead he had voluntarily resigned.
In the appeal, the appellants also challenge the court’s order compelling compliance with the judgment within three days failing which imprisonment would follow.
They argued that this deprived them of an opportunity to purge the alleged contempt or explain why they should not be jailed which they claim violated principles of natural justice.
They further accused the court of ignoring the absence of intent to defy the order and failed to consider that no dismissal had occurred.
They argued that administrative actions taken after Yang’s resignation were incorrectly interpreted as termination of employment.
They said the court wrongly found wilful and bad-faith non-compliance despite their interpretation of the interim order being based on legal advice.
Among other grounds, the appellants submitted that the court improperly resolved disputed factual issues through affidavits and failed to adequately determine their counter-application seeking dismissal of the principal proceedings and discharge of the interim order.
The appeal argued that although Yang obtained interim relief on December 30, 2025, he allegedly failed to pursue the main application, prompting the appellants to seek dismissal of the matter.
“The court erred in law by failing to properly determine the appellants’ counter-application seeking dismissal of the principal proceedings and discharge of the interim order, considering that the respondent obtained interim relief on December 30, 2025,” argued the appellants.
The appellants also challenge punitive costs awarded against them and question whether the interim order should remain in force indefinitely.
EMCU and the co-appellants are requesting the Industrial Court of Appeal to overturn the earlier judgment, dismiss the contempt proceedings, discharge the interim order and order the respondent to pay legal costs.
…Officials appeal contempt ruling
EMCU Registrar Sebenta Menon and the institution’s Council Chairperson Boy Bongani Dlamini have launched an urgent appeal to stop the enforcement of an Industrial Court judgment that could see them imprisoned for contempt of court.
The matter is before the Industrial Court of Appeal where Menon, Dlamini and EMCU are appealing against a judgment delivered on Tuesday in favour of Vice Chancellor Paul Seung-Hun Yang.
Menon said the judgment directly affected him and Dlamini both in their personal and official capacities because the ruling carried the possibility of imprisonment.
“The decision has the potential of landing me and the chairperson of the council in prison,” Menon stated.
He reflected in court that the dispute originated from urgent proceedings instituted by Yang on December 30, 2025 against EMCU, the attorney general and the ministry of education and training.
At the centre of the dispute was Yang’s challenge to the termination date of his employment contract as vice chancellor. Yang sought urgent interim relief stopping EMCU from terminating his employment contract pending determination of the main application.
RELATED | EMCU suspends face-to-face lessons
The Industrial Court granted an interim order staying the university’s decision purporting to terminate Yang’s contract on December 30, 2025 pending finalisation of the matter. The order was returnable on January 20. EMCU later filed an answering affidavit on February 13.
According to Menon, Yang did not file further papers between February 19 and March 3. However, on March 3 Yang allegedly instituted urgent contempt of court proceedings against the appellants.
In response, on March 17, EMCU filed a counter-application and answering affidavit seeking several orders, including striking out Yang’s main application for want of prosecution, vacating the interim order granted earlier, dismissing both the main application and contempt proceedings as well as awarding costs against the VC on an attorney-and-client scale.
Yang opposed the counter-application through a replying affidavit filed on March 19, raising legal arguments based on the doctrine of unclean hands.
The matter was heard by the Industrial Court on March 24 before judgment was delivered Tuesday in Yang’s favour.
Being dissatisfied with the outcome, Menon, Dlamini and EMCU lodged an appeal and simultaneously sought urgent relief staying execution of the judgment under Rule 27 of the Industrial Court of Appeal Rules of 1997.
The appellants argued that although courts generally protected former employees from being denied benefits arising from judgments, the circumstances of their case differed because imprisonment was at stake.
According to Menon, Yang would suffer no prejudice if execution was stayed because he continued receiving remuneration and had reportedly been paid salaries until August, described as the last day of his employment.
“Us being in custody does not in any way prejudice his enjoyment of the fruits of the judgment,” Menon argued.
The appellants maintained that they faced irreparable harm that could not be remedied by costs if they were jailed before the appeal was finalised.
They further claimed that before the Industrial Court judgment was delivered, the chief immigration officer had already refused to cancel Yang’s work permit.
Menon submitted that had Yang disclosed his interactions with immigration authorities, the court may not have issued the contested order.
The appellants also argued that the Industrial Court erred in concluding that the contempt of court order had been established.
They were adamant that EMCU did not terminate Yang’s employment contract despite the earlier court order and argued that any dispute over changed employment conditions should have been pursued through a different legal process.
“The order for contempt was therefore not justified under the circumstances,” Menon said, adding that courts should not be seen to be micromanaging the administrative affairs of employers.
The appeal additionally challenged the Industrial Court’s reliance on the doctrine of unclean hands, with the appellants arguing that the court failed to consider delays in prosecuting the original urgent application launched in December 2025.
The appellants also disputed punitive costs awarded against them, insisting there was no malice because Yang continued receiving salary payments.
“Had there been malice on the part of the appellants, the appellants would have simply paid remuneration up to March,” Menon argued.
The urgent application before the Industrial Court of Appeal seeks orders waiving normal court procedures due to urgency, condoning non-compliance with prescribed time limits, staying execution of the judgment delivered on May 19 and enrolling the appeal for an expedited hearing.
The application was set down for hearing today with the appellants warning that failure to obtain relief could result in imprisonment after today before their appeal is already determined.
