James Chakona v Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA)

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO.LC/MS/07/2013
HELD AT MASVINGO ON MARCH 11, 2013
CASE NO.LC/MS/52/2011
In the matter between:
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	   	JUDGMENT NO.LC/MS/07/2013

HELD AT MASVINGO ON MARCH 11, 2013   	CASE NO.LC/MS/52/2011

In the matter between:

JAMES CHAKONA		 				Appellant

And

ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY		  	Respondent

(ZIMRA)

Before The Honourable E. Makamure, President

For Appellant : Mr John Chirunda (Trade Unionist)

For Respondent: Mr Knowledge S. Renzva (Legal Officer)

MAKAMURE E,

The appellant was employed by the respondent as a driver.  He was dismissed following disciplinary proceedings for:

‘falsification of records and or writing false information onto Authority documents.’

This is a violation of the applicable code of conduct.

The brief facts of the matter are as follows:

The appellant in his capacity as a driver was asked to get a quotation for repairing a bumper of a certain damaged vehicle.  He got the instruction from a Mr Mandihlare.  The instruction was to the effect that once he got a quotation which was below one hundred USD (USD 100.00), he could leave the motor vehicle with the service provider in question.  Appellant went to a place called Cagon.  He got a quotation for USD 80.00 for the job.  Since the quotation was below the hundred US dollars, the appellant called the office to advise them.  At the office he spoke to another officer a Mr Nyahangare (and not Mr Mandihlare).  Mr Nyahangare (Nyahangare) told him to get two more quotations.  This he did and he presented all the three quotations to his superior (Mr Nyahangare).  This was on 14 July 2011.

On that same day, 14 July 2011, the respondent’s procurement committee met.  The committee awarded the job to the service provide whose quotation was USD80.00. There were two other quotations as directed by Nyahangare.  One was from Byword Trading (Pvt) Ltd for USD130.00 and the other one was from Perfect Panel Beaters and Spray Painters for USD146.00.  When papers were being processed one clerical staff observed that the quotation for USD140.00 showed a VAT of USD6.00.  This was an incorrect calculation as the VAT for USD140.00 should be in the region of twenty US dollars (USD20.00).  Following this observation it turned out that the two quotations of USD146.00 and USD130.00 were false quotations because the service providers had quoted USD40.00 and USD30.00 respectively.  Thus the two figures had a”1” inserted in front of the original quotation so that they were higher than the first quotation of USD80.00.

What is not clear is the person who altered the figures to make the other two USD100 more expensive.

The appellant’s position is that he simply presented the quotations to Nyahangare and that he did not even look at the last two quotations although he had looked at the very first one.  Nyahangare says he looked at them and that he had even remarked to the appellant when the last two quotations were brought that he had expected that the USD80.00 quotation would have been the most expensive one.  This is a remark that the appellant denies.

What is important to note is that the quotations were presented to Nyahangare on 14 July.  On that same day the procurement committee sat to deliberate on the quotations.  It is not indicated how urgent this repair was to the respondent which required the procurement committee to sit on the same day that the quotes were obtained.  Had the clerical staff been given a chance to consider the quotations first, the anomaly would have been noted before a service provider was chosen.  While the award of tender may not be significant to the final result, what is important is that the problem would have been dealt with much earlier.  The impression seems to be that it is either the appellant or Nyahangare who altered the figures.  It was not explained or clarified to the Court as to who Nyahangare gave the quotations soon after he got them from the appellant.  What is clear is that the procurement committee dealt with the papers on that same day.  If Nyahangare gave them to a third person before the procurement committee deliberated, then it is quite possible that the third person may have altered the figures.

This also means that there is a possibility that the appellant might not be the one who altered those figures.  This therefore casts doubt on the veracity of Nyahangare’s evidence.  Once there is doubt, it means that the required onus has not been sufficiently discharged.

In view of the above I find merit in the appeal.

Accordingly it is ordered that the appeal be and is hereby granted.

Zimbabwe Revenue Authority, Representatives for the Appellant.

Legal Division of ZIMRA, Representatives for the Respondent.