Tichaona Changadeya v Health Services Board

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/732/14
HELD AT HARARE 21ST OCTOBER 2014
CASE NO
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	     JUDGMENT NO LC/H/732/14

HELD AT HARARE 21ST OCTOBER 2014		CASE NO LC/H/827/12

& 7TH NOVEMBER 2014

In the matter between:-

TICHAONA CHANGADEYA				Appellant

And

HEALTH SERVICES BOARD			Respondent

Before The Honourable F.C. Maxwell, Judge

Appellant			In person

For Respondent		Mr M Bhamu (Human Resources Officer)

MAXWELL, J:

This is an appeal against the decision of the respondent to discharge appellant from service following conviction for misconduct.  Appellant was a nurse aid at Karoi Hospital. He was charged and convicted of improper or discourteous behaviour including sexual harassment.  He was also charged and convicted of committing an act or omission inconsistent or prejudicial to the discharge of official duties.  The Disciplinary Committee recommended his dismissal.  The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the recommendation and discharged him from service.  Appellant subsequently appealed to the respondent which appeal was not successful.   Appellant then appealed to this Court on 16 October 2012 on the following grounds

Improper handling of hearing process

Disregarding of facts on my part

Gross victimisation.

On 21 October 2013 appellant filed an amendment of notice of appeal

raising issues of bias and malice, improper and unreasonable exercise of discretion and constructive dismissal.

In response respondent stated that appellant’s guilt had been proved.  Witnesses testified of his improper behaviour.  Further that behaviour had the effect of tarnishing the image of the Ministry of Health and bringing it into disrepute.

At the hearing of the matter appellant emphasised that he was aggrieved by the way he was treated during the disciplinary hearing.  He alleged that there were so many irregularities in the hearing procedure.  Appellant outlined the alleged irregularities.  I dismissed the matter for being improperly before the court.

An appeal of this nature is governed by Section 92 D of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].  It should be against the determination.   It is governed by Rule 15 of this Court’s rules, Statutory Instrument 59/2006.

In the case of Johannesburg City Council v Administrator, Transvaal and Mayofis 1971 (1) SA 87 the court stated that where the real grievance is against the method of the trial, the case must be brought on review as judicial review is concerned not with the correctness of the decision but with the decision making process.  In this Court Rule 16 governs applications for review.  Applicant should have approached this court on review as he is aggrieved by the decision making process.

Accordingly I dismissed the appeal for being improperly before the Court.