Anyway Madzure v Drumcity (Pvt) Ltd & Anor

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/151/2020
HARARE, 22 JUNE 2020
CASE NO.
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE      JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/151/2020

HARARE, 22 JUNE 2020		             	CASE NO. LC/H/LRA/400/19

AND 3 JULY 2020

In the matter between:-

ANYWAY MADZURE				Applicant

And

DRUMCITY	 (PVT) LTD				 1st Respondent

And

ISHMAEL HWINDINGWI			2nd Respondent

Before Honourable B.S. Chidziva, Judge

Applicant				In Person

For 1st Respondent		Mr V. Shamhu (Legal Practitioner)

For 2nd Respondent		Mr K. Chirenge (Trade Unionist)

CHIDZIVA, J:

This is an application for confirmation of the ruling by Designated Agent Madzure that was made on 30 August 2019.

The brief facts of the matter are that the 2nd Respondent was dismissed from employment on charges of theft. He had been employed as a driver. He was suspended from duty with effect from 28 November 2017. The amount involved was $19 791-67. Respondent then send a registered mail inviting the claimant for hearing on 29 November 2017. This was seven days before the scheduled date of 7 December 2017. The claimant only saw the registered mail 14 days after the hearing. The Designated Agent in his ruling found that the 2nd Respondent had not been afforded the opportunity to present his case. The 1st Respondent was ordered to reinstate the 2nd Respondent to his previous position and reconvene the hearing. The reinstatement was to be on or before 9 September 2019.

If 2nd Respondent was to be found guilty 1st Respondent was to pay $6 405-00. If the 1st Respondent was not found guilty the 1st Respondent was to pay accrued wages. Failure to reconvene the hearing 1st Respondent was to pay damages.

The 1st Respondent opposed this application stating that the 2nd Respondent was in wilful default because he was served with the notice for hearing. He deliberately chose not to collect the registered mail and chose to collect it on a day suitable to him.

The 2nd Respondent did not appear at the hearing because he only received the mail after the hearing. Section 5 (d) of SI 35/2011 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement for Motor Industry states that before concluding the matter the hearing officer should invite the party to answer the allegation and give him the opportunity to make pertinent comments and give reasons for any course of action.

This was not done in this case. The 2nd Respondent was not heard. The Applicant was therefore correct in finding that the termination was unlawful.

In the circumstances I therefore order that;

The ruling by Designated Agent Anyway Madzure dated 1st October 2019 in the matter between Ishmael Hwindingwi and Drumcity (Pvt) Ltd in the total sum of $12 811-00 be and is hereby confirmed as a ruling of this court.

The 1st Respondent shall pay costs in the sum of $462-00.

Vasco Shamu & Associates, 1st Respondent’s legal practitioners