George Makanda v Minister of Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation Development

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/660/14
MUTARE ON 18th SEPTEMBER , 2014
CASE NO. LC/H/169/13
AND 10 TH
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	                          JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/660/14

MUTARE ON 18th SEPTEMBER , 2014			     CASE NO. LC/H/169/13

AND 10TH OCTOBER, 2014

In the matter between

GEORGE MAKANDA 						–	APPELLANT

And

MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, MECHANSATION

AND IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT				-	RESPONDENT

Before The Honourable L.M. Murasi, J

For Appellant   :	Mr I.H. Mandikate (Legal Practitioner)

Respondent 	   :	In default

MURASI J,

At the commencement of the proceedings a Mr Chavarika from the National Prosecuting Authority informed the Court that he was representing Respondent’s Counsel who has requested him to make an application for postponement of the matter. The reason for the application was that Respondent’s Counsel had believed the matter was going to be held in Harare instead of Mutare. The Court dismissed the application on the basis that Respondent was served with the notice on 31st July 2014 clearly which showed that the hearing would be held in Mutare. This marked a lack of diligence on the part of Respondent’s Counsel.

Appellant’s Counsel stated in submissions that he abided by the Heads of Argument filed of record. It was stated that Respondent had not been able to prove the charge on a balance of probability as the evidence had shown that Appellant had not misused the fuel coupons as alleged. On the second charge, Appellant averred that he was the Executive Officer and he was using the log-in book to check and monitor his subordinates. It was argued that he was required to log-in with his immediate supervisor. It was further argued that Respondent had erred in imposing two penalties on Appellant.

This case clearly shows what a misunderstanding of proceedings can lead to. Appellant was charged with a failure to account for the fuel coupons in that when he received them from their Head Officer in Harare, he was supposed to surrender them to the Accounts Department where they would be recorded. This was a requirement in terms of Treasury Instructions. This the Appellant did not do and readily admits. His reasons for so-doing were that once he surrendered them, he would not be able to access them. Indeed the Hearing Committee made the following finding:

“The Committee came to this decision after considering that Mr Makanda’s issue of fuel coupons was not a case of using the coupons on his personal errands but a matter of not recording them in the register at the Provincial Office …….

The evidence clearly proved this issue. As far as the charge of logging-in is concerned, Appellant’s Counsel made a concession during the hearing that Appellant was not complying with the Circular. This ground of appeal also fails.

I now turn to the issue of penalty. The Committee recommended that Appellant be reprimanded. The Committee did not recommend that Appellant be transferred as a penalty. The Committee stated this:

“Department should consider transferring Mr Makanda to another province for the Provincial Agricultural Extension Officer cannot work with him.”

This was not a penalty to be meted out to Appellant but a recommendation made on the basis of the evidence the Committee had heard. It was therefore erroneous to allege that Respondent had transferred the Appellant as penalty for the offences that he faced.

It is on the basis of the above observations that the Court finds that there is no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

Mugadza, Chinzamba & Partners – Appellant’s legal practitioners