Emmanuel Magarira v Central Africa Building Society

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO.LC/H/456/13
HELD AT HARARE ON 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2013
CASE NO. LC/H/805/12
AND 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2013
JUDGMENT NO.LC/H/456/13
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	    JUDGMENT NO.LC/H/456/13

HELD AT HARARE ON 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2013	  CASE NO. LC/H/805/12

AND 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2013

In the matter between:-

EMMANUEL MAGARIRA					-		Applicant

And

CENTRAL AFRICA BUILDING SOCIETY	-		Respondent

Before the Honourable G. Mhuri, Judge

Appellant	: 		In Person

For Respondent:	Mrs. R. Matsika (Legal Practitioner)

MHURI J:

At the conclusion of this appeal hearing I dismissed the appeal and indicated that my reasons will follow.  These are they.

Appellant was in Respondent’s employ as a Teller and was 2nd in charge at the Branch.  He was charged with and found guilty of two acts of misconduct namely:-

Knowingly aiding or assisting the unlawful taking of property.

Violating safety rules or measures with serious consequences.

Consequently he was dismissed from employment.

He then appealed to the Local Joint Committee and to the Negotiating Committee which in turn dismissed his appeals.

Aggrieved by the Negotiating Committee’s decision, Appellant turned to this Court for redress.

The brief facts of this matter and which are generally common cause are that on the 21st July, 2011 Appellant processed a cash withdrawal transaction of $4 000,00 from a savings account of one Nsamba which account had been placed on Hold 17.  The Hold 17 is a warning which appears on the screen prohibiting the processing of transactions on accounts that would be under investigations for suspected fraud.

Appellant’s contention before this Court was that he does not know the case he was being accused of by the Respondent.

The evidence on record and in particular his submissions before the initial hearing committee does not support this contention.

At the onset of the disciplinary hearing, after the charges had been read to him, Appellant pleaded not guilty to the first charge and guilty to the second one.

He then stated that since it was a funeral claim he processed the transaction in a hurry and in the process overlooked the Hold 17.  It is recorded that he stated that he did not recognize that that the account had a restriction in place.

Further the record shows that Appellant submitted before the Disciplinary Committee that the branch was busy and that since it was a funeral claim withdrawal he hastily processed the transaction without carefully checking the status of the account.

The record further shows that Appellant apologized for his actions citing lack of proper guidance from the controller and that he did not knowingly and in the unlawful taking of $4 000,00 but rather was careless in the performance of his duties.  If this is not flouting company rules what would be.  Further, his decision to ignore and override the Hold 17 and process the transaction is in my view an action which falls under the first charge i.e. knowingly aiding the unlawful taking of the money.

It was not in dispute that Appellant was the second in charge at the Branch.  He was issued with a controller card which he used to override the restriction as the transaction required a double override since the amount was above $200,00.

In view of the above, for Appellant to therefore state that he does not know the case he was accused of is to stretch his luck too far.

I find that the Designated Officer’s findings cannot be impugned.  The appeal is totally devoid of any merit and was accordingly dismissed.

WINTERTONS – RESPONDENT’S LEGAL PRACTITIONERS