Tafara Gumede v Zimbabwe Revenue Authority

Key Issues

• {"issue_text":"Whether it was proper to charge appellant on basis of expired contract","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Contract expired 31 July 2014, misconduct discovered later, employment continued under new terms"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether appellant could be charged based on respondent's Code of Conduct","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Appellant is managerial employee, Code mentions managerial employees, contract clause binds appellant to Code"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether the charge preferred against appellant was appropriate","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Appellant charged with category D offence, argues should have been category A offence"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether appellant was found guilty of misconduct he was charged for","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Charge was failure to carry out analysis, disciplinary committee found violation"}
• {"issue_text":"Whether penalty of dismissal was appropriate","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"First offender, satisfactory record, no prejudice established, betrayal of trust"}

Background