Grace Chitambira v Mega Park Zimbabwe Ltd

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/36/2023
HARARE, 23 JANUARY 2023 &
30 JANUARY 2023
CASE NO LC/H/222/22
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	   JUDGMENT NO LC/H/36/2023

HARARE, 23 JANUARY   2023 &			   CASE NO LC/H/222/22

30  JANUARY 2023

In the matter between:-

GRACE CHITAMBIRA				APPELLANT

MEGA PARK ZIMBABWE  LTD			RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable Kudya J

For the Appellant		J. Marange (Legal Practitioner)

For the Respondent		S. Sadomba  (Legal Practitioner)

KUDYA, J:

This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent employer’s disciplinary committee which found appellant employee guilty of misconduct and penalised her with dismissal.

Background to the matter is that appellant absented self from work from 13 December 2021 to 31 December 2021. When quizzed about her absence she stated that she had been off sick and tendered sick leave notes stating that she was off sick over that period. The medical certificate she tendered at first was dated 27 December 2021. Respondent avers that upon further enquiry with the medical facility it was advised that appellant had not been attended to for the retrospective period which she sought to suggest.  In that regard she favoured the committee with yet other sick leave forms. Her argument on appeal is that the respondent failed to prove that the actual medical certificate issued by Doctor Mufaro was not forged.

It is settled that proof in labour cases is on a balance of probability.  See ZESA  v Dera

1998 (1) ZLR 500(S). A look at the medical certificates used speak to the following features. Appellant purportedly visited 2 different medical practitioner i.e. Ruwa Family Clinic and Ruwa Family Health Centre.  It is apparent from the letter heads that these were 2 different medical facilities. The Health Clinic Certificate was written on 27 December 2021 but with reference to the  prior dates of 13 December 2021 to 30 December 2021 but the  inquiry made thereof revealed that a medical certificate could not be issued in retrospect and the records showed that she had last been seen at the facility in October 2021.  As regards the Health Centre report it purportedly granted her leave from 13 December 2021 to 24 December 2021. She having attended at the facility on 12 December 2021. Her argument is that if respondent doubted the Health Centre report it should also have queried it as it did with the Health Clinic one.

What is apparent is that there are conflicting reports which attempt to explain the appellant’s absence. That conflict in itself suffice to cast aspersions on the authenticity of the reports to the extent that the respondent was at large to conclude that appellant’s absence had not been satisfactorily explained.  In the result the court is satisfied that the appeal has no merit. It should thus fail.

IT IS ORDERED THAT

Appeal being without merit it be and is hereby dismissed with costs.

Mberi, Tagwireyi and Associates, Appellant’s Legal Practitioners

Gill Godlonton and Gerrans.  Respondent’s Legal Practitioners