Zindoga Tatenda v CMED (PVT) LTD

Key Issues

• {"issue_text":"Whether the Managing Director erred in not calling for oral evidence","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"The Code did not oblige oral evidence; matter decided on papers"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether the delay in concluding the appeal was a procedural irregularity","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Appellant's addendum caused delay; exceeded 5-day limit"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether the disciplinary bodies were biased","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Appellant alleged bias without demonstration"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether the evidence was contradictory and unreliable","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Appellant admitted receiving money but not receipting it"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether denial of legal representation affected guilt","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Code ousted legal representation; evidence pointed to guilt"}

Background