The brief background of this appeal is that Appellant was employed as a Driver/Salesman by the Respondent. It is alleged that on the 9th of July 2010 he delivered 28 cases of beer at Sahara Bottle Store in Budiriro Harare. It is also alleged that the appellant told the Respondent that he had sold the beer to Sahara on credit when he had actually been paid US$361,00 by Mr. Mutepfa. The Appellant was charged with theft and was dismissed from employment with effect from the 24th of December 2010. More
The appellant was employed by the respondent as a procurement officer. He was charged with three counts of misconduct for ‘any act of conduct or omission inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of his or her contract’. These were violations of paragraph 4 (a) of the National Code of Conduct S.I. 15 of 2006. More
This is an appeal against the appellant’s dismissal from the respondent’s employment. He appealed internally but the appeal failed. The appellant was employed by the respondent as a Procurement Officer. He was charged with three (3) counts of violating section 4(a ) of the National Employment Code of Conduct Statutory Instrument 15 of 2006 (S.I.15/06). More
This is an appeal against the decision of the National Hearing Committee of the respondent company which confirmed the appellant’s dismissal on charges of violating the respondent’s code of conduct. In particular it was alleged that the appellant contravened sections 3(8) (1), 3 (8) (viii), 4(10) and 4(11) of the respondent’s code of conduct.
The brief facts of the case are that appellant was employed by the respondent company as a counter clerk based at Chitungwiza post office. On the 12th of February 2011, whilst on duty the appellant is said to have been involved in a misunderstanding with a... More
The Appellant was dismissed from the Respondent’s employment for absence from work for a period in excess of seven (7) days without either advising the Line Manager or having satisfactory reason. This was a violation of the applicable Code.
It is not disputed that the Appellant was absent from work for the period between 25 October 2008 and 7 November 2008 (thirteen 13) days). More
