This is an appeal against the decision of the Respondent’s Disciplinary Committee where it found the Appellant guilty of being absent from work for more than 5 days without reasonable excuse and subsequently dismissed him.
The case has a long history of default judgments, rescission, striking off of the matter and at one point a withdrawal of the matter when there were efforts to have the matter settled out of court. The history being what it is, it is pertinent to note that it is only in the instant case that this case has been heard on the merits. It... More
The matter was placed before me as an appeal against a determination by the Responsible Disciplinary Committee handed down on the 6th August 2013 which determination found the Appellant guilty on a charge of violation of Schedule Part J, Sub-section 2 (b) of the relevant Code of Conduct and consequently a dismissal penalty was imposed. More
This is an application for condonation of the late noting of an appeal by the applicant against the respondent’s order where its Disciplinary Committee dismissed the applicant on allegations of breaching the respondent’s Code of Conduct. More
is an application for Condonation for the late noting of an appeal.
The factors to be taken into consideration in an application such as this are the extent of the delay, the reasonableness of the explanation for the delay and the prospects of success see General Kodzwa v Secretary of Health and Another 1999 (1) ZLR 313 (S). I propose to consider the said factors in relation to this case. More
Appellant’s grounds of appeal as per his Notice of Appeal are that:-
The Respondent’s General Manager erred on point of law in;
(a) Finding that Appellant was guilty of theft a charge which is not supported by the facts.
(b) The decision to dismiss the Appellant was predetermined.
(c) Appellant guilty when the hearing was held n contravention of the Code of Conduct and was marred by irregularities namely:-
(i) Appellant was never given an opportunity to
listen to the testimony of the witnesses who testified in his absence.
(ii) Appellant was never afforded an opportunity to
cross-examine the witnesses.... More
