Tirivangani Chiyanike v National Oil Infrastructure Company of Zimbabwe

Key Issues

• {"issue_text":"Whether the chargehand had the authority to verbally instruct the appellant to check ullage levels and dips, and whether disobeying such instruction constituted insubordination.","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The chargehand's verbal instruction, the supervisor's written instruction in the Shift deployment sheet, the procedures manual, the job description."}
• {"issue_text":"Whether the appellant was responsible for ullaging based on the available documentation and evidence.","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The Shift deployment sheet, the procedures manual, the job description, the appellant's admission to ullaging two tankers."}
• {"issue_text":"Whether there was sufficient evidence that the appellant wilfully failed, neglected, or refused to comply with conditions of service.","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The absence of conditions of service documents, the Standard Operating Procedures, the Shift deployment form."}
• {"issue_text":"Whether the appellant falsified an official document or electronic record or caused false or misleading information to be recorded.","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The appellant allowing an independent agent to do ullaging, the appellant not reporting his lack of monitoring, the recording of false dips."}
• {"issue_text":"Whether the appellant failed to account for property (diesel) belonging to the company.","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The appellant's duties included opening valves for loading, the instruction to ullage, the potential loss of 39,000 litres of diesel."}
• {"issue_text":"Whether the chargehand was an interested party and should not have been called as a witness.","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"The chargehand's responsibility for checking ullage levels per the procedures manual, the chargehand's delegation of this duty to the appellant."}

Background