James Kambarami v Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT
NO LC/H/33/13
HARARE 7TH FEBRUARY 2013
CASE NO
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/33/13
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE		JUDGMENT NO LC/H/33/13

HARARE 7TH FEBRUARY 2013				CASE NO LC/H/115/12

JAMES KAMBARAMI					Appellant

ZIMBABWE PARKS AND					Respondent

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

Before The Honourable G Musariri, President

For Appellant		Mr J Kambarani, Applicant

For Respondent		Mr M Mufambwa, Officer

MUSARIRI, G:

Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent.  His grounds of appeal read as follows,

“1.	The hunt was authorised by Mr Chinhovo in the presence of …

2.	I was issued with rifle and ammunition for purpose of hunt

3.	I did not sell meat to anyone.

4.	I did not pay a deposit fine but to my surprise I so them producing it on third appeal.

5.  	The(y) also took my top copy of my receipt I paid part payment of compensation of $300.00

6.	On the third appeal the hunt was confirmed according to Mr Kuramba diary but its not in the minutes of the report.

7.	Mr Chinhovo also said I paid the fine on the 15th, 19th and 22 one receipt but to my surprise its not in the minutes.

8.	When I tolled (sic) them about the purpose I used the meat they said no problem because they were carrying stone for their personal stand using authority property (tractor GNP 572).”

Respondent opposed the appeal.  Their case was that Appellant was assigned duty to collect school children from an Education Camp On his way he saw a herd of impala.  He tracked a male impala and shot it.  He took the carcass to Chirundu where he had it skinned. He then sold the meat to one Mubaiwa.  The meat was found in possession of Mubaiwa.  Police arrested Mubaiwa and he stated that he had bought same from Appellant for US$40.00.  Appellant paid a deposit fine for poaching.  He also paid Respondent an amount of US$300.00 towards compensation for the impala carcass.

I am persuaded by Respondent’s case for the following reasons,

Respondent admitted that the hunt was initially authorised and Appellant was part of the designated hunters.

The hunt was cancelled on the same day.

Such hunts were always conducted by a party of at least three (3) hunters.

Appellant killed the impala on his own.

He made the decision to dispose of the carcass on his own

He admitted paying compensation for the carcass meaning that he had wrongfully disposed of Respondent’s property.

Though he denied paying the admission-of-guilt fine for poaching, it is highly unlikely that someone would pay the fine against his wishes.

It is most improbable that Respondent would authorise a hunt by a sole hunter who had simultaneous duties involving ferrying school children.

Appellant’s unilateral decision in disposing of the impala carcass is consistent with the entire hunt being a frolic of Appellant’s rather than an authorised hunt.

In the circumstances, I am satisfied that there was a proper and sufficient basis for the guilty verdict returned by Respondent against Appellant.

Wherefore it is ordered that,

The appeal is hereby dismissed ; and

Each party shall bear its own costs.

G. MUSARIRI

PRESIDENT