Lazarus Zhuwao v Zimbabwe Revenue Authority

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/332/13
HELD AT HARARE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2008
CASE NO
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	      JUDGMENT NO LC/H/332/13

HELD AT HARARE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2008	     CASE NO LC/H/49/06

LAZARUS ZHUWAO					Appellant

ZIMBABWE REVENUE					Respondent

AUTHORITY

Before The Honourable G Musariri, President

For Appellant		Mr L Zhuwao, Appellant

For Respondent		Mr K Renzva, Officer

MUSARIRI, G:

Appellant worked for Respondent as an Administration Assistant based in Harare.   On 25th October 2005 he was charged with misconduct.  A hearing was held.  He was found guilty and penalised with dismissal.  He appealed against the outcome.  Respondent’s Appeals Committee dismissed the appeal.  He then appealed to this Court against the decision of the Appeals Committee.

Appellant’s grounds of appeal read as follows,

“1)	Erred misdirected itself for not considering procedural irregularities.

2)	For upholding dismissal whereas the appropriate penalty was a warning B6 offence

3)	Like the disciplinary committee did not make any finding and a verdict.”

1st  ground

The procedural irregularities alleged were not spelt out in the notice of appeal.  In Appellant’s Heads Of Argument it was averred that under Respondent’s Code of Conduct “investigations should be completed before a Disciplinary and Grievance Committee convened to determine on the allegations levelled against the Appellant.”  The point was not fully developed.  In oral argument Appellant submitted that investigations were not done prior to the laying of  charges against him.  However the record belies these allegations.

It has a report titled “Investigation Report:  The conduct of Mr Lazarus Zhuwao:  Harare Agricultural Show (2005): Missing Property.”  It is an 8 page document detailing facts leading to the charges.   It is dated 25th October 2005 the same date when charges were laid.  Therefore Appellant’s complaints about lack of or incomplete investigations cannot be sustained.

2nd ground

Appellant was found guilty of C4 and D25 offences.  C4 is defined as

“The unauthorised use of property or facilities for purposes other than those for which they are intended.”

In this case the property in question was Respondent’s motor vehicle which Appellant was found to have used for private business.  The prescribed penalty for the offence is a final warning on first breach.

D25 is defined thus,

“Carrying out any act, which is consistent with the express or implied conditions of the contract of employment.”

It carries a penalty of dismissal on first breach.  Therefore Appellant’s dismissal was warranted by his conviction on the D25 charge.  It further appeared that he was sitting on a final warning at the time of the disciplinary hearing.  A C4 offence triggers dismissal on second breach. Therefore his C4 conviction could also have triggered dismissal as a second breach.

3rd ground

The Chairman of the Disciplinary and Grievance Committee (GDC) wrote a letter dated 1st November 2005 addressed to Appellant.  The letter stated that the GDC had found Appellant guilty of charges C4 and D25 under Respondent’s Code.  It further advised that the penalty therefor was dismissal “with immediate effect.”  The Chairman of the Appeals Committee (AC) wrote a letter dated 5th December 2005 addressed to Appellant.  The letter stated that the AC had decided to uphold the decision of the GDC.  Appellant signed both letters as acknowledgement of receipt.  Both the GDC and AC made decisions concerning the verdict and penalty.  In the circumstances the complaint about lack of “finding and a verdict” did not hold water.

All in all I find that Appellant failed to sustain any of the grounds of appeal raised.  The appeal thus lacked merit.

Wherefore it is ordered that,

The appeal is hereby dismissed.

G MUSARIRI

PRESIDENT