Israel Chiwetu v Innscor Africa

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT
LC/H/96/13
HELD AT HARARE ON 26 FEBRUARY, 2012
CASE NO. LC/H/794/11
JUDGMENT LC/H/96/13
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE		JUDGMENT LC/H/96/13

HELD AT HARARE ON 26 FEBRUARY, 2012	CASE NO. LC/H/794/11

In the matter between:

ISRAEL CHIWETU				-		Appellant

And

INNSCOR AFRICA				-		Respondent

Before the Honourable President, E.F. Ndewere

For Appellant				In Person

For Respondent				Ms E. Drury (Legal Practitioner)

NDEWERE E.F.

The Appellant was employed as a bread transfer officer at the time of the offence; He was the Acting Supervisor.  He collected 3 600 loaves of bread from Simon Mazorodze bakery for transfer to Lytton Road bakery.  The van was later found to have 3 200 loaves of bread and the paperwork was altered to read 3 200 loaves.  In addition, the Appellant did not complete his shift paper by appending his signature to the documents.

The Appellant was charged with contravening the following sections of the Innscor Code of Conduct

Section 9.2.4 xiv, deliberate falsification of records

9.2.4. xvi, willful disobedience to a lawful order

9.2.4 xvi, gross negligence of duty,

The Disciplinary Committee found him guilty as charged and on appeal; the Appeals Committee confirmed the verdict.  The Appellant was advised of his right to appeal to the Labour Court.

At the start of the case, the Respondent raised the following points in limine:

That the appeal was noted out of time because in terms of the Code of Conduct, the Appellant should have noted the appeal 14 days after receipt of the appeal verdict.  Counsel for Respondent said Appellant received the verdict on 27 March, 2012 so he should have noted his appeal by 16 April, 2012, but instead, he did so on 20 April, 2011.

That the notice of appeal was defective because it did not provide all the requested information required by the form; on name and address of representative; the Appellant wrote “TBA” and on the part requiring witnesses’ name he again wrote “TBA”.

That the notice of appeal attached grounds of appeal from a person who has no locus standi to appear for the Appellant; that person not being a Legal Practitioner or the Appellant contrary to the provisions of Section 92 the Labour Act.

Counsel for Respondent said because of the preliminary objections, the appeal was not properly before the Court and should be dismissed.  In response, the Appellant conceded that he noted the appeal out of time; he also conceded that the grounds of appeal attached were from one Maenzanise, whom he said was his brother who was neither a Legal Practitioner nor a Trade Unionist for Innscor workers.  His explanation was ignorance of the law.

Ignorance of the law being no defence in our law, the Court was left with no option but to uphold the points in limine and dismiss the appeal with no order on costs.

HONEY AND BLANCKENBERG – RESPONDENT’S LEGAL PRACTITIONERS