Phyllis Mafuwa v Silo Food Industries Limited

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/300/2024
HARARE 8 JULY 2024
CASE NO LC/H/567/24
11 JULY 2024
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE

HARARE 8 JULY 2024

11 JULY 2024

JUDGMENT NO LC/H/300/2024 CASE NO LC/H/567/24

PHYLLIS MAFUWA	APPELLANT

SILO FOOD INDUSTRIES LIMITED	RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable G. Musariri Judge:

For Appellant	-	Mr W. Mutsvadziwa, Attorney

For Respondent	-	Mr S. Bhebhe, Attorney

MUSARIRI, J:

At the onset of oral argument in this Court, respondent raised two (2) points in limine which appellant opposed. The points shall be dealt with ad seriatim.

That the appeal is fatally defective for want of valid grounds of appeal: Respondent complained that the grounds of appeal are not clear and concise. The Court will deal with each of the seven (7) grounds of appeal.

“1. The Appeals Officer grossly erred and/or misdirected himself in confirming a conviction and penalty where there is no scientific evidence to prove a scientific allegation.”

The ground does not say what the scientific allegation is. Neither does it say what the missing evidence is. The ground does not inform the respondent or the court the precise case to be dealt with.

“2. The Appeals Officer grossly erred and misdirected himself in accepting recommendations of the disciplinary authority to confirm his findings of guilty and penalty of dismissal of the Appellant; and in confirming that as a matter of law, guilty has been proven on a balance of probabilities.”

The first half of the ground simply say the Appeals Officer erred in upholding the ruling by the disciplinary authority. That is clearly not a precise ground of appeal. The remainder focuses on the standard of proof but does not say whether a wrong standard was used or what.

“3. A fortiori the Appeals Officer erred in concluding that findings of fact could be made sustained on the facts of evidence that was not fully tested, could not be assessed and was such as precluded the Respondent from reaching a position as to what had truly happened.”

Again, appellant mentions ‘evidence’ which he has not bothered to specify. Respondent and

the Court are left guessing as to what the evidence is.

“4. The Appeals Officer erred and/or misdirected himself in confirming a penalty of dismissal in circumstances where a finding of guilty was not supportable on the evidence that was adduced before the disciplinary authority.”

The ‘evidence’ referenced is not specified.

“5. The Appeals Officer erred in not finding that the defence put forward by appellant and not rebutted by the employer was such as absolutely precluded the existence of a guilty mind on her party.”

This is the only ground that comes close to the requisite specificity, but it does not specify what the defence raised was.

“6. Appellant having been required to address the disciplinary authority on mitigation before the ruling, the Appeals Officer erred in coming to the conclusion that there were valid proceedings before him that he could relate to.”

This ground raised a matter of procedure. Whether or not the correct procedure was followed is a matter for review rather than appeal.

“7. The Appeals Officer grossly erred and/or misdirected himself by not giving Appellant notice of the right of review or appeal against his decision.”

Again, this ground raises a matter of procedure. It does not deal with the evidence which is the pith or substance of an appeal.

Rule 19(1) of the Labour Court Rules, 2017 requires that an appeal be on Form LC 4. That Form specifies that

“Grounds of Appeal (must be concise and precise)”

The position is buttressed by case law such as  Chimaiwache v State SC 18/13

“It seems that the rider contained in those authorities is still not being heeded by those who practice law in this jurisdiction. A notice of appeal must contain grounds that are clear and  specific.  If a ground of appeal is general, then it cannot be a valid ground of appeal….”

Appellant argued that the “precision of the grounds of appeal enabled the Respondent to respond to them on merit.” The precision of the grounds is measured objectively.  It is not measured by a respondent’s response Therefore appellant’s alibi is discounted.

That the relief sought is incompetent

It is unnecessary to deal with this point in light of the conclusion above that the “appeal” does

not have valid grounds of appeal.

Wherefore it is ordered that

The Respondent’s 1st point in limine be and is hereby upheld;

The matter is struck off the roll by reason of an invalid appeal, and

Each party shall bear its own costs.

G MUSARIRI J-U-D-G-E