SOS Children's Villages v Batsirai Chipunga

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/260/25
HARARE, 10 JUNE 2025
CASE NO. LC/H/290/25
SOS CHILDREN’S VILLAGES
APPELLANT
---------


IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/260/25 HARARE, 10 JUNE 2025		CASE NO. LC/H/290/25

SOS CHILDREN’S VILLAGES	APPELLANT

And

BATSIRAI CHIPUNGA	RESPONDENT

Before the Honourable Kudya J;

For the Appellant	- T. Mabuya		(Legal Practitioner) For the Respondent	- W. Kupara	(Unionist)

KUDYA J:

On 10 June 2025 this court ordered a de novo hearing into a labour matter between appellant employer and the respondent employee. The basis for such an order was that, it was apparent from the papers filed in IECMS in the case that, the report which resulted in the reinstatement of the respondent was irregularly allowed at the appeal stage. It was never interrogated at the shop floor proceedings. A reading of the shop floor proceedings could not show clearly how the accused’s guilt was arrived at.

In the result, the court deemed it proper to allow the appeal and set aside both the appeal proceedings and shop floor proceedings with a view to having the matter re-determined properly afresh.

Reasons for this decision have been requested and these are they:-

The background to the matters is that, the respondent employee was accused of committing an act of bribery and abuse of office. This arose from the fact that a trespasser at the school was let loose on his account. Disciplinary proceedings which were conducted in his case concluded that he was guilty. He was penalised with dismissal.

He appealed against the substance and procedure leading to his being found guilty. The appeals committee was favoured with a report called the Peace Security Report which excused respondent’s conduct. On account of that report, the appeals committee upset the guilty verdict and dismissal penalty meted out on the employee. The employer in turn appealed to the Labour Court and prayed that, the appeals committee’s decision be upset and that the court confirms the employee’s guilty verdict and dismissal penalty.

After hearing the parties this court dismissed the appeal and the basis is set out below:

It is settled that the appeal court should not lightly interfere with the exercise of discretion by a trier of fact. See Nyahondo v Hokonya and others 1997(2) ZLR (S). In the case at hand, the court read through the proceedings before the disciplinary committee and those before the appeals committee. A reading of the disciplinary committee proceedings could not demonstrate with sufficient clarity how the employee’s guilt was arrived at. All that was on record were incomprehensible notes with the conclusion that the employee was found guilty. When the matter was now before the appeals committee nothing better was done. This time some report called the Peace Security report was brought in and it formed the basis of the reinstatement order.

It is settled that an appellant body cannot interfere with what was not dealt with, by the tribunal below it. See Chironda v Swift I996 (1) ZLR 142(S). It was stated on the record that, product of that report had been barred by the employer at the disciplinary hearing stage. It is not clear what the report was meant to support or clarify. If it was essential to the decision on the matter, it had to be interrogated and decided on by the disciplinary committee. That did not happen.

All that was just left were terse notes from the disciplinary committee and the sudden U turn by the appeals committee without any just foundation. It is imperative that one’s guilt be both

substantively and procedurally correct. That cannot be said of this case. Both panels were just coming up with orders that are not supported by what happened before them. For that reason the court concluded that both processes had to be vacated and the employee’s guilt or otherwise be re-determined afresh in a procedurally and substantively correct manner.

It is for the above reasons that the order of 10 June 2025 came about.

Matlaw	Appellant’s Legal Practitioners