Mhandi Badza v Grain Marketing Board

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT
NO LC/H/673/16
HELD AT HARARE 13 SEPTEMBER 2016
CASE NO
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE			JUDGMENT NO LC/H/673/16

HELD AT HARARE 13 SEPTEMBER 2016		CASE NO LC/H/286/15

& 4 NOVEMBER 2016

MHANDI BADZA					Appellant

GRAIN MARKETING BOARD			Respondent

Before The Honourable G Musariri, Judge

Appellant			Ms M Badza, Appellant

For Respondent		P Makuwaza, Attorney

MUSARIRI J:

On 12 March 2015 respondent’s Acting General Manager (AGM) dismissed appellant’s appeal against her dismissal from employment.  Appellant then appealed to this court against the decision.  Respondent opposed the appeal.

The key finding upon which appellant was convicted was set out by the Acting General Manager as follows,

“a) You admitted during your disciplinary hearing that you collected Shupikai Mandlazi’s salary from the Head Office without her consent.  You only communicated with her husband whom you alleged to have authorised you to collect her wife’s salary.  However, without Mandlazi’s specific authorisation, you had no right to collect her salary.  Regrettably, Mandlazi has not received her full salary to date, which you collected.  Your conduct amounted to theft of Mandlazi’s salary by conversion.  You also received $50 as debt repayment from Mandlazi’s salary which you were given by Petros Chikonya.  No one know how the rest of the money was used except for the $100 that was allegedly handed over to Mandlazi.”

Appellant dealt with this finding in her heads of argument thus,

“2.5 It is apparent from the evidence that the complainant had applied for money for specific reasons and that she knew that it had become available.  The fact that she did not go to collect it herself is indicative of the fact that there was a prior arrangement for someone else to collect it on her behalf.  Her explanation for not going personally just cannot withstand scrutiny.

She knows that she has no bank account where the money could have been transferred into so her excuse is ridiculous.  Furthermore if she did not go because she was expecting the money to be transferred into a non-existent bank account, why did she ask her husband about the money in the night.  And when he gave her some of the money, why did she not ask him how he had obtained it since it was to be transferred into a bank account?  The only logical conclusion is that she was well aware that appellant would collect money on her behalf.”

Appellant’s case was that the complainant was her co-worker.  Complainant asked her to collect her wages on her behalf from respondent.  Indeed respondent confirmed such practice was a regular occurrence amongst its employees.  It is common cause that appellant collected complainant’s wage.  She signed for it.  She then handed over the money to complainant’s husband.

So the crisp issue was whether or not she acted with complainant’s consent.

Minutes of the disciplinary hearing are filed of record.  The complainant (Mandlazi) testified as follows,

“The following morning when I was fetching water at Mrs Badza’s residence, I met Mrs Badza and she asked why I was not thankful since she had collected my money from Head Office the previous day and gave it to Chikonya.  I was puzzled that she was the one who had collected my money from Head Office…”

“I differ with her in two areas. Firstly, I respond on the issue that Mrs Badza is saying I called her, to be honest, I did not call her.  If I had done so, I should not have gone to salaries to verify who signed and collected my  money…”

It is apparent from the evidence of the complainant that she did not authorise appellant to collect her wage.  The evidence suggests that the wage was collected on some instruction by complainant’s husband.  That apparently explains why appellant boldly signed for the wage.  However this does not excuse her conduct.  She simply did not get complainant’s consent.  That was the crux of the case against her.  The involvement of complainant’s husband does not change the position.

The ground of appeal that the offence does not merit dismissal was not pursued in either the oral or written submissions.

Wherefore it is ordered that,

The appeal be and is hereby dismissed; and

Each party shall bear its own costs.

G MUSARIRI

J U D G E