Sunday Mavodyo v Minister of Primary & Secondary Education

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/192/2016
HARARE 15 MARCH 2016
CASE NO. LC/H/82/15
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	                 JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/192/2016

HARARE 15 MARCH 2016				       CASE NO. LC/H/82/15

AND 8 APRIL 2016

SUNDAY MAVODYO							Appellant

MINISTER OF PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION		Respondent

Before The Honourable G. Musariri, Judge:

For Appellant 		Mr S.T. Mutema, Attorney

For Respondent		Ms K. Warinda, Officer

MUSARIRI, J:

Appellant worked for Respondent as a teacher.  He was charged with various acts of misconduct.  The main offence was improper association with a female pupil at his school.  A hearing was conducted.  He was found guilty and then dismissed from employment.  He has appealed to this Court against the dismissal.

The thrust of Appellant’s case was that there was no credible evidence led against him.  This arose from the evidence of the female pupil (Shyleen) at the hearing.

Excerpts from her testimony went as follows,

“Q.	It is alleged that Mr Mavodyo fell in love with you between January 2013 and February 2014?

A.	No.

Q.	Did you go with Mr Mavodyo?

A.	No.

Q.	Who wrote this letter?

A.	Its me.

Q.	Do you agree with its contents?

A.	I wrote the letter in fear of my parents.  They forced me to write that I was in love with Mr Mavodyo.  My guardians were influenced by the head to say we were in love, they dictated to me what to write.  I stated in the letter that I slept with Mr Mavodyo thrice.”

In other words, Shyleen recanted from her previous position that she had a sexual relationship with Appellant.  On that basis Appellant argued that Shyleen having recanted, there was no credible evidence led against him.

Respondent countered that notwithstanding Shyleen’s U-turn, there was other evidence against Appellant.  There was the evidence of Prosper.  He testified thus

“Q	Prior to the sports day.  Is there anything that suggests that Mr Mavodyo and Shyleen were in love?

Yes.  She once gave me a letter to give Mavodyo.

Q.	With whom was Shyleen when you were cooking?

A.	Shyleen was in Mr Mavodyo’s room because we did not see her when we went to collect thighs for cooking.”

Liberty also testified,

“Q.	Did you see Shyleen at the house?

We saw Shyleen coming to the house with Mr Mavodyo when we were

in the hut cooking. That was around 8 pm.

Q.	Did you see Shyleen and Mr Mavodyo entering the room?

A.	Not exactly entering Mr Mavodyo’s room but we saw them opening the 			dining room door and then entered.”

Going by the testimony of both Prosper and Liberty there was a relationship going on between Appellant and Shyleen.  Appellant denied such relationship. What then becomes the inference if the boys are believed?  The relationship could only be an improper association in the absence of an innocent explanation of the same by Appellant.  What else would a female pupil want at a teacher’s house in the evening?  Why would the pupil be writing a letter to the teacher? Nothing material was deposed or argued as to why the boys would lie against Appellant.  A young girl like Shyleen could easily have been pressured to disown her initial statement.  In the circumstances I consider that there was credible evidence implicating Appellant besides Shyleen’s conflicting evidence.  In other words the Disciplinary Authority had evidence upon which to convict Appellant of the offence charged.  I am satisfied that the conviction and dismissal of Appellant by Respondent was justified.

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.