In a judgment handed down on 12 May 2015 Justice Smith (Retired), found the appellant guilty of various acts of misconduct, in terms of the Labour (National Employment Code of Conduct) Regulations, Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006. The retired judge was the Hearing Officer in a disciplinary hearing convened by the respondent, to determine various allegations of misconduct levelled against the appellant, during his tenure as General Manager Finance, Zimbabwe Broadcasting Holdings (Pvt) Ltd. Consequent to his conviction on the charges of misconduct, the respondent’s Board of Directors terminated the appellant’s contract of employment. More
At the commencement of the proceedings, 2nd Appellant informed the Court that Appellants were waiting for a Mr. Mangwende who was coming to present the matter on their behalf. Mr. Mangwende’s motor vehicle was alleged to have broken down near Mutare. The Court inquired from 2nd Appellant whether this Mr. Mangwende was a legal practitioner or trade unionist. It turned out that he was neither. The court informed 2nd Appellant that in the result Mr. Mangwende could not present their case having regard to the provisions of section 92 of the Labour Act. Appellants thereafter made a decision to have... More
The Appellant was employed by the Respondent on a fixed term contract from 28 July, 2009 to end of June, 2010. The Appellant then absented himself from duty without leave from 21 September, 2009 to 16 October, 2009. This was during examination time when he should have been part of the invigilating team and when he should have been present when students wrote his examination paper. More
The appellant worked for the respondent as an I T Support Officer at Head Office in Harare. He was charged with misconduct (gross incompetence or inefficiency in the performance of work). He was found guilty and then dismissed from employment. He appealed against his dismissal to the respondent’s appeals machinery. On 27 January 2014 the Final Appeals Committee dismissed his appeal. He then appealed to this court. The respondent opposed the appeal. More
