In Brief
A university challenged an order extending a retiring employee's service until age 62. The High Court initially dismissed the university's appeal, upholding the employee's extension. The university then filed a review petition, which the High Court allowed in a brief, unreasoned order that merely stated there was an error without explaining it. The Supreme Court held this review order was legally unsustainable because review jurisdiction requires a court to identify and demonstrate the specific error on the record that justifies review—mere assertion is insufficient. The case was remitted to the High Court to reconsider the review application afresh with a detailed, reasoned judgment within three months."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.