Paradzayi Chazovachiyi v Zimbabwe Revenue Authority

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT
LC/H/336/13
HELD AT HARARE 24TH JUNE 2009
CASE NO
JUDGMENT LC/H/336/13
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	     JUDGMENT LC/H/336/13

HELD AT HARARE 24TH JUNE 2009		     CASE NO LC/H/650/05

PARADZAYI CHAZOVACHIYI				Appellant

ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY			Respondent

Before The Honourable G Musariri, President

For Appellant		Mr J Wood, Advocate

For Respondent		Nr D Chinawa, Attorney

MUSARIRI, G:

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

“1.	No evidence was led to prove the allegations for example there were no witness (sic) to substantiate the allegations.

2.	The Appellant was convicted on mere allegations.

3.	The Appellant gave evidence which was not contradicted and therefore should have been acquitted. The evidence given by the Appellant shows that he had not committed any form of misconduct and therefore the finding of guilt was not justified.

4.	There was no proper trial.”

The appeal raised both procedural and substantive issues.

Procedure

The grounds of appeal alleged that there was no proper trial.  This suggests that there were irregularities.  However the irregularities were not spelt out in the grounds. In his Heads Of Argument Applicant complained that he was improperly denied a postponement.  He further  complained that he was found guilty of offences which had not been charged.  These complaints relate to matters of procedure.  Such matters should be raised by way of review and not in an appeal as in casu.  By choosing the appeal route Appellant foreclosed his case concerning irregularities.

Merits

The charge against Appellant was set out in Respondent’s letter to him dated 5th August 2005.  The relevant part read as follows,

“1.	You purchased one motor vehicle from South Africa, being a Toyota Liteace Pick Up (US$2000.00) imported on 18 May 2005, using foreign currency (forex) that you purchased from the black market in contravention of the Exchange Control Regulations.

2.	You exported foreign currency (forex) in excess of the limit allowed under the Exchange Control Regulations.

3.	You failed to declare the said motor vehicle(s) as required under Zimra’s asset declaration policy.”

Prior to the hearing, Appellant wrote a memo to his Regional Controller concerning this car.  The memo is dated 31st July 2005.

It reads, in part,

“6	He (E Chibi) discussed the matter with his brother who happen to be working in South Africa and his name is Elliot Londa – to sell one of his cars to me since he wanted to beef up his herd of cattle in Zimbabwe.  He promised to come back to him if he has seen fit to buy me a pick up and give him $40 000 000.00 the value I have said I can afford to his brother.

7.	When he came back to see his project Hotel opposite ZESA complex he told C the Japenese pick up which I accepted with both hands because it was an opportunity I was not going to get due to foreign currency scacety (sic).

8.	The duty I was going to pay and the money came from my account and my wife’s account…”

At the hearing on 17th August 2005 Appellant gave a difference defence which went thus,

“It is true I imported the Toyota Liteace pick-up vehicle.  I have a relative in South Africa who  bought me the motor vehicle.  I used the funds from the diaspora.”

In the 1st statement Appellant stated he bought the vehicle using his own Zimbabwean funds.  In the 2nd statement he recanted and claimed the car was bought for him by a relative in South Africa.  Clearly Appellant was playing fast and loose with the truth.  The Disciplinary Committee (DC) concluded that Appellant “illegally exchanged $40 m for US$2000 which was used to purchase the vehicle.”  I consider that the DC was justified in making such finding.  The vehicle was acquired in South Africa.  It was imported into Zimbabwe using Appellant’s name.  The circumstances show that he bought it from someone based in South Africa.  Such a person would need payment in forex.

Thus Appellant must have acquired and exported forex in order to consummate the deal.  In the process Appellant, not being a licensed forex dealer, violated the letter and or spirit of the exchange control regulations which he and his employer were required to enforce.

Wherefore it is ordered that,

The appeal is hereby dismissed; and

Each party shall bear its own costs.

G. MUSARIRI

PRESIDENT