Taona Matengarufu v Pioneer Coaches (Pvt) Ltd

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/405/2014
HARARE, 05 JUNE 2014
CASE NO.
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	                 JUDGMENT NO. LC/H/405/2014

HARARE, 05 JUNE 2014                                               	      CASE NO. LC/H/114/14

AND 04 JULY 2014

TAONA MATENGARUFU					Appellant

PIONEER COACHES (PVT) LTD			Respondent

Before The Honourable G. Musariri, Judge:

For Appellant 		Mr. C. Chigwada

For Respondent		In Default

MUSARIRI G:

Appellant appealed to this Court against his dismissal from employment by Respondent.  On the date of hearing of the appeal Respondent defaulted.  However its case is set out in their Response filed of record.  Ordinarily I would have granted the appeal by reason of Respondent’s default.  However the record shows that the appeal is devoid of merit.  Why?

Appellant worked for Respondent as a Bus Inspector.  He was charged with misconduct.  A hearing was held.  The minutes thereof are filed of record.  The basis of the charges is set out in the minutes thus,

“The complainant Joseph Makura presented his report as follows:

On the 30th December 2013, I was doing my duties and checked CB0033 that was being conducted by Taona Matengarufu and the bus was proceeding to Bulawayo.  However, on checking the tickets I discovered that Taona was fiddling (sic) the tickets by defrauding through forging.  He wrote tickets for Harare to Bulawayo charged $15 but on the audit tickets it was Harare to Kadoma written $5 thereby pocketing $10 from each and every ticket he wrote.  Taona did this on (5) five tickets and had pocketed 37 dollars from this illicit deal.”

This constituted direct proof of Appellant’s guilt.  In addition Appellant paid an admission of guilt fine in respect of the same charges at a police station.  Furthermore when confronted by management Appellant grabbed the audit tickets and chewed them.  This was an obvious attempt to destroy the evidence against him.  That was a dramatic indication of his guilt.

Appellant’s defence on the merits amounted to a bare denial of the charges.  Not much was said to dispute or discredit complainant’s evidence.  I consider Appellant’s denial of the charges in these damning circumstances as cynical and self-serving.

Wherefore it is ordered that,

The appeal is hereby dismissed; and

Each party shall bear its own costs.

G.   M U S A R I R I

J. U. D. G. E.