Samukeliso Mpofu v Zimbabwe Revenue Authority

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGEMENT LC/H/349/13
HARARE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008
CASE NO
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE           	JUDGEMENT LC/H/349/13

HARARE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008			           CASE NO LC/H/639/05

SAMUKELISO MPOFU					Appellant

ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY			Respondent

Before The Honourable G Musariri, President

For Appellant			Ms J.B. Wood (Advocate)

For Respondent			Ms A Mapanzure (Attorney)

MUSARIRI, G:

Appellant worked for Respondent at Beitbridge Border Post.  On 12th August 2005 she was charged with misconduct.  A hearing was held on 22nd  August 2005.  She was found guilty and punished by dismissal.  She appealed.  On 31st August 2005 Respondent’s Appeals Committee heard the matter and dismissed the appeal.   Appellant then appealed to this Court.

The grounds of appeal (written in longhand) read,

“1.	 No evidence was led to prove the allegation for example there were no witnesses to substantiate the allegations.

2)  The Appellant was convicted on mere allegations.

3)  The Appellant gave evidence which was not contradicted and

therefore should have been acquitted (sic) the evidence given by the Appellant shows that (sic) he had not committed any form of misconduct and therefore the finding of guilt was not justified

4) There was no proper trial”

The charges against Appellant were,

“D18 -   Conviction in any court of law for any offence, not necessarily

involving work, where dishonesty; fraud is material element;..

D25 -   Carrying out any act, which is inconsistent with the express or;

implied conditions of the contract of employment, in that;

You purchased one motor vehicle from South Africa, during the using foreign currency purchased from the black market in contravention of the Exchange Control; Regulations.

You exported foreign currency in excess of the limit allowed under the Exchange Control Regulations

You improperly claimed travellers’ rebate on the vehicle thereby prejudicing the authority of its revenue.

You have been convicted in a Court of Law in relation to the acquisition of the above motor vehicle mentioned in (a) above.”

Filed of record are extracts from the criminal record book at Beit Bridge Magistrates Court.  Appellant was charged in the criminal court with contravention of section 174 (1) (d) of the Customs and Excise Act Chapter 23:02 “Making a false declaration”.  The details were that,

“In that on the 10th March 2005 and at Beit Bridge, the accused Samukeliso Mpofu unlawfully made a false declaration so as deceive in regard to payment of full duty, that is to say Samukeliso Mpofu declared a Ford Laser in her name  instead of its rightful owner Laurah Mubaso.”

Appellant pleaded guilty to the charge.  She was found guilty and sentenced to 8 months imprisonment which was wholly suspended on certain conditions.

Her guilty plea and conviction are proof enough of the commission of misconduct called D18 under Respondent’s Code of Conduct.  She averred that she appealed against the conviction.  An appeal does not set aside a conviction by a criminal court.   She did not furnish the Court with the outcome of the appeal.  Thus the conviction stood and substantiated the case against her.

The other complaints raised by Appellant relate to procedure.  They do not deal with the substance of the case.  Such complaints must be raised via a review rather than an appeal.  In other words, they fall outside the ambit of the appeal in casu.

All in all, I consider that the appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly it must fail.

Wherefore it is ordered that,

The appeal is hereby dismissed; and

Each party shall beat its own costs.

G. MUSARIRI

PRESIDENT