Fightwell Mukanganwi v Escapades

Key Issues

• {"issue_text":"Did the Appeal Board misdirect itself by imputing liability on the appellant when he was not in charge of repacking?","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Appellant was supervisor; packing occurred in his department; he admitted no supervision."}
• {"issue_text":"Did the Appeal Board misdirect itself by not requiring training before the charge?","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"No evidence that training was a prerequisite for accountability."}
• {"issue_text":"Did the Appeal Board fail to give due weight to the denial of legal representation?","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Appellant did not object to proceeding without representation."}
• {"issue_text":"Was the appellant denied the right to examine witnesses and call his own?","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Appellant declined to call witnesses when asked."}
• {"issue_text":"Should the final written warning have been nullified?","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Warning was valid and not appealed."}
• {"issue_text":"Should the Appeal Board have postponed the matter due to the absence of legal practitioner?","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Postponement granted; practitioner failed to appear without notice."}

Background