Florence Marume v Permanent Secretary for Home Affairs and Cultural Heritage

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/92/2024
HARARE, 29 FEBRUARY, 2024
CASE NO R-LC/H/60/23
07 MARCH 2024
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGMENT NO LC/H/92/2024

HARARE, 29 FEBRUARY, 2024

07 MARCH 2024

CASE NO R-LC/H/60/23

FLORENCE MARUME	APPELLANT

PERMANENT SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS AND

CULTURAL HERITAGE	RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable G. Musariri, Judge:

For Appellant	- Mr R.H Goba, Advocate

For Respondent	- Mr L.T. Muradzikwa, Attorney

MUSARIRI, J:

Appellant appealed to this Court against her dismissal from employment by Respondent who opposed the appeal.

The grounds of appeal were three-fold as follows;

“1.	The Respondent grossly erred and/or misdirected himself in his assessment of the evidence that was placed before the Disciplinary Committee.

The Respondent grossly erred and/or misdirected himself in accepting the recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee to confirm its finding of guilt and penalty of dismissal of the Appellant and; in confirming that as a matter of law, guilt had been proved on a balance of probabilities.

The respondent grossly erred and/or misdirected himself in confirming/imposing a penalty of dismissal in circumstances where a finding of guilt was not supportable on the evidence that was adduced before the Disciplinary Committee.”

Essentially the grounds take issue with the assessment of evidence by the Disciplinary Authority (DA). However the grounds are cast in broad and general terms. They do not specify in what way the assessment of the evidence was wrong. The requirement for clarity in grounds of appeal was stressed in

Chikura v Al Shams 2017(1) ZLR 181(5) per Ziyambi JA at 184 B

“Great care should be taken in drafting a notice of appeal to ensure that the grounds of appeal concisely and clearly set out the issues to be determined by the appeal court and the respondent is properly informed of the case he has to meet on appeal.

For the above reasons, I am constrained to agree with Mr Uriri that the notice of appeal does not comply with the Rules of this Court and out to be struck out.”

During oral argument appellant sought cure the defect by focusing on the ‘demerits’ of the key witness in the matter one Simbarashe Mhonda. Because Mhonda walked out during cross- examination it was argued that his evidence could not be relied on and the whole proceedings were tainted with irregularity. This Court disagrees and considers that the walk-out does not invalidate the proceedings. Rather it may or not affect the assessment of his evidence.

The gist of Mhonda’s evidence is captured in the minutes of the hearing thus;

“I had visited Makombe office to replace my ID only to be told that I could not get it. I then passed through the passport office to check how I could get the ID. I met Ms Tagwirei whom I advised of my ordeal and she said it was an easy one.

She said she would give me the name and number of the person who could assist me at Market Square. She then asked me how much I had so that I could pay kick back to the person who was going to assist me. She was asking for the money yet she knows that I am a student and I do not have any money. I then told her I could afford USD10.00 instead of the USD15.00 she had advised me to pay. I then went to town to look for the money before going to Market Square. On my way I met some police officers who were educating people about corruption. I then questioned myself what I was doing. I approached them and they went with me to Market Square. Before getting there, I made a stop at Chicken Slice from where I made my call to prove that there was indeed someone I was going to meet there. She advised me to meet her at the Deaths Section. I went and saw her but somehow she was a bit jittery and I told her not to worry. I then introduced Constable Jamwanda as my sister and Sergeant Mafuyana as my uncle who gave me the money for the IDs. She was about to refuse to assist me asking how we were going to get to Mabvuku. She then put the money under her keyboard. One might ask why I wanted to engage in a corrupt activity to get an ID and reported the matter. I can safely answer saying that if I can pay for one thing I can get then I am simply saying that the guys at the Central Registry are going against the efforts of the Minister and the responsible authorities….” Underlined for emphasis.

The quintessence of Mhonda’s evidence is that he paid appellant a bribe in to get assistance in obtaining an ID. The money paid was marked and identified before payment and after recovery from appellant’s keyboard. That critical aspect was not challenged or contradicted by evidence by or on behalf of appellant.

The salient findings by the disciplinary committee cover these key issues.

“5.7	The US$10 note was trap money used by police officers to determine any act of bribery on Ms Marume. As such the money was recovered from Ms Marume.

Ms Marume could not proffer reasons for receiving the US$10.00 and what it represented. She had no reason to receive the money since she was not a receipting officer and service fees at Market Square Registry Office are charged in local currency and not United States Dollars.

The aforementioned circumstances and the intention of putting the US$10.00 under her computer keyboard suggest an act of receiving a bribe.”

The findings and conclusions by the disciplinary committee were consistent with both the facts and the probabilities. The DA correctly adopted their recommendation.

The criminal case authorities cited on behalf of appellant are inapplicable in labour matters which are civil in nature. The applicable authority is as cited for respondent.

Joubert, The Law of South Africa Vol 19 para 573

“In civil proceedings, proof is furnished upon a prepondenderance of probability and this is the case even when allegations of criminal or immoral conduct are to be proved.”

Quoted with approval by McNally JA in

ZESA v Dera 1998(1) ZRL 500(5) AT 503.

There was no argument made by appellant as regards the severity of the penalty. Indeed the penalty was well within the discretion of the employer considering the gravity of the misconduct in casu. All in all it is concluded that the appeal ought to be dismissed as devoid of merit.

Wherefore it is ordered that,

The appeal be and is hereby dismissed; and

Each party shall bear its own costs.

G. MUSARIRI J-U-D-G-E