Munyaradzi Randazha v Mweb Zimbabwe

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT
LC/H/204/2014
HARARE, 26 SEPTEMBER 2013
CASE NO LC/H/199/2010
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/204/2014
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	  JUDGMENT NO LC/H/204/2014

HARARE, 26 SEPTEMBER 2013 &		CASE NO LC/H/199/2010

11 APRIL 2014

In the matter between:

MUNYARADZI RANDAZHA					APPELLANT

Versus

MWEB ZIMBABWE						RESPONDENT

Before The Honourable B S Chidziva   :	  Judge

For the Appellant		J Mawopa     (Trade Unionist)

For the Respondent	P Nyeperayi   (Legal Practitioner)

CHIDZIVA J:

On 8 October 2009 the parties appeared before Honourable G Mhuri on appeal wherein the appellant was raising procedural irregularities and substantive issues. In view of the procedural irregularities that had been raised the Honourable judge quashed the entire proceedings and ordered as follows:

“To that end, the appeal is allowed and it is ordered as follows:

That the Appeals Committee and Disciplinary Committee proceedings be and are hereby quashed and the matter be and is hereby remitted to the respondent for a re-hearing which proceedings are to be commenced within 14 days of this judgment and before different members of the committee.”

The respondent in their submission have told the court that the Disciplinary Committee heard the matter and found the appellant guilty and dismissed him from employment. The respondent however referred the appellant to this court for appeal as an Internal Appeals Committee could not be constituted since the chairman was incapacitated from presiding over the appeal. The Chairman cannot be replaced given the establishment of the respondent.

The respondent was ordered to re-hear the disciplinary proceedings before different members of the committee. The fact that the chairman of the respondent is incapacitated from presiding over the appeal does not mean that the respondent cannot deal with the appeal. The respondent can get somebody from outside to preside over the matter before bringing the matter to this court.

Accordingly it is ordered that the respondent deal with the appeal before the Labour Court deals with it.

Each party is to bear its own costs.

Costa &Madzonga, respondent’s legal practitioners