Charles Makwaiwa v Telecel Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE HARARE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/198/24
CASE NO LC/H/1015/23
4 MARCH 2024
30 APRIL 2024
In the matter between:-
APPLICANT
---------


==============================IN THE LABOUR COURT OF JUDGMENT NO LC/H/198/24

ZIMBABWE HARARE, 4 MARCH 2024 CASE NO LC/H/1015/23

& 30 APRIL 2024

In the matter between:-

APPLICANT

CHARLES MAKWAIWA

RESPONDENT

TELECEL ZIMBABWE (PVT) LTD

Before the Honourable Kudya J
For the Applicant In Person

For the Respondent I.D. Chirongoma (Legal Practitioner)

KUDYA, J:

This is an application for leave to the Supreme Court following a decision by the labour court to uphold the applicant’s guilty verdict and dismissal penalty on allegations of abuse of the employer’s fuel facility when he had been laterally transferred from Harare to Bulawayo.

The test for leave to appeal is settled See Ngazimbi v Murowa Diamonds SC 27-13. In the case at hand applicant says that the court erred by upholding the decision of the trier of fact yet it was clear that all evidence tendered pointed to the contrary. He states in particular that his Bulawayo duties were distinct from Harare duties and that he inherited a station which previously had a station vehicle so he only used his vehicle to advance the employer’s interest so he should not have been found guilty.

It is settled that appeals in labour matters should not result in lightly interfering with the discretion of the trier of fact unless it can be demonstrated that there was gross unreasonableness See Hama v NRZ 1996 (1) ZLR 664 (S).

In the case at hand the employer demonstrated through its witnesses why it concluded that applicant had abused the fuel facility. Evidence was led which showed clearly that what applicant did vis the drawing of the fuel was not sanctioned by his employer hence their charging him.

When the court entertained the appeal it had no cogent reason to upset the decision of the employer finding that the employee had abused fuel. In his notice of appeal to the Supreme Court it is clear that applicant wants the Supreme Court to have a relook at the evidence and foundation of his guilty verdict and dismissal penalty. Such is clearly not the function of the appeal court. It is clear that no point of law has been made out for the Supreme Court’s determination. For the definition of a point of law. See **Sable Chemicals v Easterbrooke SC-18-10**. It is clear that all that is sought is a mere revisitation of the matter without demonstrating gross unreasonableness in the decision of the labour court in upholding the employer’s decision. That goes contrary to the test for leave to appeal set out as **Ngazimbi** (Supra). In the ultimate it is clear that no good case for leave to appeal has been made out. The application should therefore fail.

**IT IS ORDERED THAT**

Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court being without merit it be and is hereby dismissed with costs on the ordinary scale.

C. Kuhuni Attorneys, Applicant’s Legal Practitioners
--- END OCR FALLBACK ---