Emmanuel Muputisi v Strongdoor Investments (Pvt) Ltd t/a DM Security

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE HARARE, 8 MAY 2025
JUDGEMENT NO. LC/H/298/25
CASE NO. LC/H/137/25
EMMANUEL MUPUTISI
APPLICANT
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE HARARE, 8 MAY 2025

JUDGEMENT NO. LC/H/298/25 CASE NO.	LC/H/137/25

EMMANUEL MUPUTISI	APPLICANT

STRONGDOOR INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD T/A DM SECURITY

Before the Honourable G. Musariri Judge:

For Applicant	G. Togara, Unionist

For Respondent	T. Magaya, Attorney

MUSARIRI, J:

RESPONDENT

Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent. The appeal was made in terms of Section 92D of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01. The grounds of appeal were four-fold as follows,

“1a. The Respondent erred in proceeding to entertain a dismissal by the Designated Officer without proper hearing.

The Appellant was at no point invited for the hearing.

There are no records of proceedings on the whole process.

The decision of the Respondent to dismiss the Applicant is a nullity at law.

The code was not followed properly by the Respondent.

The aggrieved party first approached the Labour Court for condonation. See Annexure A.

The Appellant received the dismissal on the 12th of May 2023. See Annexture B.

Put simply the Respondent is hiding behind a finger, jumping from one tree to another in a manner designed to subterfuge and disguise the truth of the matter. See attached copies c, d and e purported minutes of the hearing.”

Respondent’s opposing affidavit mainly countered thus,

2

JUDGEMENT NO.LC/H/298/25 CASE NO.	LC/H/137/25

“5.1…The Appeals Authority correctly upheld the decision of the Designated Officer of finding the Appellant guilty (sic) the charges against him. The Appellant was properly notified of the hearing and he appeared on the date of hearing and actually outlined his defence. Find attached a copy of the Notice marked as Annexure B.

6…The decision to dismiss the Appellant was properly arrived at after consideration of the evidence which was presented during the disciplinary hearing. The Appellant addresses the propriety of the minutes of the hearing but does not challenge his dismissal which clearly proves that the decision to dismiss the Appellant was properly arrived at.

6.2 The Appellant alleges that the code was not followed but fails to outline in what way exactly was the code not followed. In any event in labour matters tribunals are not obliged to follow the rules of evidence as is prescribed in formal court.

7.1 There are no issues arising save to state that the two grounds are not grounds of appeal as they do not challenge the findings of the Council nor the Designated Officer.

8.1… The Council correctly upheld the conviction as the Respondent had managed to prove the charge against the Appellant.”

ANALYSIS

The appeal and response thereto raise a single-issue.

Whether the appeal raises valid grounds of appeal:

The 1st ground raise issues of procedure save for paragraph 1(d) which deals with the decision to dismiss appellant. However the paragraph simply states that the decision is ‘a nullity without elaborating. It is vague and embarrassing and thus void.

The 2nd ground simply states that appellant approached the Labour Court for condonation. That is not a valid ground of appeal. The 3rd ground states that appellant received the dismissal on the 12th of May 2023. It is not a ground of appeal. The 4th ground accuses respondent of ‘hiding behind a finger’ and ’jumping from one tree to another’ in order to disguise the ‘truth of the matter.’ It does not deal with the merits of the impugned decision/dismissal. Instead it focuses on the conduct of respondent.

The grounds of ‘appeal’ raise issues concerning the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings. Those are matters for review rather than appeal. An appeal focuses on the findings and merits of the impugned decision. A review focusses of procedural aspects up to the decision. See

3

JUDGEMENT NO. LC/H/298/25

CASE NO. LC/H/137/25

Charumbira v Taxes Commissioner

1998(1) ZLR 584(S)

Per McNally JA at 585D

“Judicial Review …is concerned not with the correctness of the decision, but with the decision making process.”

It is concluded that the ‘appeal’ in casu amounts to a nullity as it does not raise cognisable grounds of appeal. It ought to be struck off on that basis.

Wherefore it is ordered that,

The appeal be and is hereby struck off the roll as a nullity; and

Each party shall bear its own costs.

G MUSARIRI J-U-D-G-E