Panganai Muza v CBZ Bank Limited

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE HARARE, 15 MAY 2025
JUDGMENT NO. LC/ H/267/25
CASE NO. LC/H/184/25
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE HARARE, 15 MAY 2025

JUDGMENT NO. LC/ H/267/25

CASE NO. LC/H/184/25

In the matter between:-

PANGANAI MUZA	APPELLANT

CBZ BANK LIMITED	RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable Kudya J

For the Appellant	In Person

For the Respondent	P C Fanti (Legal Practitioner)

KUDYA, J:

On 15 May 2025 this court dismissed with costs on the ordinary scale an appeal which had been filed by the appellant employee in a decision which saw him being dismissed by the respondent employer on allegations of misconduct. On the same date the respondent employer applied orally to the court that the appeal proceedings be stayed until such time as appellant would have paid costs under previous bills.

The application for stay was refused and the court indicated that it would give its full reasons for the denial of stay relief at the same time when it would be deciding the merits of the appeal. The appeal was also laced with points in limine which the court indicated it would also rule on in the final judgement. This judgement therefore addresses the merits of the appeal in the main, the points in limine attendant to it and the stay application.

The background to the matter is that, appellant who was in the respondent’s employment as a branch manager was brought before a disciplinary committee facing allegations of acting contrary to the conditions of his employment by:

checking and signing falsified ecocash reconciliations in January 2019 to July 2019

Taking cash from the bank using (I OWE YOU) notes	on various occasions and allowing subordinates to do the same,

Failing to effectively oversee, enforce and ensure adherence to overnight ecocash limits as per Ecocash Agent Procedure manual.

Leading and superintending over breach of RBZ weekly cash limits withdrawals over the period in use.

Failure to enforce accountability of Ecocash Agent Commission by subordinates for the same period.

Following the disciplinary proceedings he was found guilty and dismissed from employment. He appealed internally without success. This led him to appeal to the labour court on the appeal which is the subject of this judgement

The Appeal grounds can be summarised as such:-

Appeals officer grossly erred to find appellant guilty on charge 1 yet (a) evidence led showed that Matemera cash officer signed the ecocash reconciliation as per the ecocash procedure manual and not the appellant.

Disciplinary Committee ignored witness Magumise evidence that ecocash reconciliation were not falsified but were balancing yet such evidence was not controverted

Disciplinary Authority relied on an issue not brought before it resulting in wrong conclusions.

Appeals officer grossly erred by confirming appellant guilty yet there was no credible evidence to prove that:-

Appellant took RTGs 1584 from bank using IOU notes

Ruth Matemera took cash RTGS 891 from bank using IOU notes

Appellant allowed subordinate Ruth to take RTGS 891 using IOU notes

Appeals officer grossly misdirect self by confirming appellant’s guilt yet;

There was no evidence to prove a breach of the Eco cash overnight limits by subordinates as alleged,

There was no proof of breach of the Eco cash agent procedure Manual or employment Contract which appellant failed to adhere to or enforce

Appeals officer grossly erred by upholding the guilty verdict yet:-

Appellant did not commit the breaches

None of appellant subordinates violated weekly cash limits

It disregarded evidence that limits were under section 16 of Eco cash agent Manual so there was no breach of any weekly limits.

5	Appeals officer grossly erred to uphold the guilty verdict yet:-

There were no managerial controls breached by appellant

Loss was a result of respondent’s system weaskness.as stated in investigation .report.

Amount stolen by appellant subordinate Eco cash RTGs 3073 was too little to warrant harsh verdict.

Appellant had pleaded for chance to pay back loss on behalf of subordinates.

Appeals office erred to upholding guilty verdict yet there was recordable evidence on all the 5 charges to provide the misconduct findings were outrageous that no sensible person could arrive at such.

In the result appellant prayed that the appeal succeed that, the appeals officer and the disciplinary authority decisions be set aside, that he be acquitted of all the charges, that he be reinstated without loss of salary and benefits or that he be paid agreed damages or damages set by the court on quantification application by either party. Finally, appellant prayed that respondent pays his costs.

In response to the appeal, the respondent maintained in summary that:

In limine all grounds are not concise and precise as required by law, they are not coherent. The first to fifth grounds are not clear .The sixth ground does not particularise what appellant’s disquiet is. Prayer is that all grounds be struck off with costs.

On the merits:

Evidence showed that appellant was no well versed with Eco cash reconciliation procedures so he could not guide his team so he checked and signed off irregular reconciliations.

Copies off the IOU notes were produced as evidence. Appellant led the subordinates in the cashing in of IOUs. He exhibited incompetence as the violation was done under his watch.

He could not delegate. He was accountable for his subordinates’ actions He breached clients’ trust so there was no fault to dismiss him

GROUNDS 3 and 4

Appellant accepted responsibility for his failures and undertook to be more vigilant in future.

GROUND 5

There is no direct attack on the findings.

GROUND 6

Record of proceedings before appeals officer showed that, there was nothing grossly wrong that warranted appellate interference. Misconduct went to the root of the contract.

In the result, respondent prayed that, appeal be dismissed with costs on the higher scale.

STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

The Respondent prayed that the appeal be stayed pending the settlement of the costs which appellant had to settle for the previous hearings between the parties. The appellant indicated that once the bills in question were taxed he would proceed to pay as required by law. The court observed that the matter had been going back and forth countless times thus staying the proceedings would go against the spirit of section 2A of the Labour Act which enjoins the courts to afford parties a speedy resolution of labour matters. It is in the light of the demand for justice that labour matters be resolved promptly. No purpose could be achieved by deferring the matter on account of the costs argument. In the result, the court dismissed the stay application.

IMPRECISE APPEAL GROUNDS

It is settled that, appeal grounds have to be clear and concise See Kunonga v CPCA SC25-17 A reading of the grounds at stake indeed speaks to inelegant drafting but the court can appreciate what the appellant is aggrieved about. The error of referring to the same count as separate counts of a single charge does not detract from the essence of the real dispute. See Mapondera v Freda Rebecca SC81-22 on the desirability of not concluding labour matters based on technicalities. The point in limine vis the inelegantly crafted grounds is dismissed.

MERITS OF THE APPEAL

As observed on the wording of the grounds, the appellants simple disquiet is that, he is of the view that he was dismissed on dearth of evidence. All the appeal grounds speak to the fact that his view is that, evidence tendered should have caused him to be excused.

The record of the disciplinary proceedings is replete with evidence that the appellant committed the infractions but he thought by trying to right the wrongs of his subordinates that could excuse him. Sadly that could not.

The same applies to the shortfalls of the respondent’s system. That also could not excuse him. At the end of the day, the only question to be asked by the court is: Can it be said that, the decision to find him guilty and to dismiss him was grossly irrational. It cannot, if regard is had to all the evidence on record.

It is clear that, the breaches complained of happened and at some point appellant offered to make good the loss suffered. That does not excuse the breaches. In the main, it is therefore clear that, the appeal does not meet the threshold in Hama vs NRZ 1996(1) ZLR 664(S)

It should therefore fail in its entirety.

It was therefore ordered that, Appeal being without merit in its entirety it be dismissed with costs on the ordinary scale.

Mawere, Sibanda Commercial Lawyers, Respondents Legal Practitioners