ZIMBABWE REVENUE AUTHORITY v MPINDIWA 2007 (2) ZLR 49 (S)

Flynote

Employment

Headnote

The respondent was employed by the appellant. She was charged with two acts of misconduct in terms of the appellant's code of conduct. She was found guilty by the disciplinary and grievance committee and appealed to the appeals committee. At the end of the appeal hearing, the committee adjourned. It agreed to have minutes of the proceedings typed and later come up with a final overall verdict. About a week later, the chairman of the appeals committee wrote to the appellant, saying that the committee did not reach a consensus, but recommending that the verdict passed by the disciplinary and grievance committee be upheld. After another few days, he wrote to the respondent, saying that after the committee deliberated over the matter, he, as the chairman, found no reason to interfere with the decision of the disciplinary and grievance committee. He told her she could appeal to the Labour Court, which she duly did. The Labour Court found that the appeals committee had not determined the respondent's appeal. It then proceeded to determine the appeal, which ought to have been determined by the appeals committee. It set aside the decision of the disciplinary and grievance committee, and ordered the appellant to reinstate the respondent or pay her damages in lieu of reinstatement. On appeal to the Supreme Court:

Held, that the appeals committee did not determine the appeal. The chairman had no authority to decide the appeal on behalf of the appeals committee, so his decision was null and void, and of no force and effect. There was, therefore, no decision or determination against which the respondentcould have appealed to the Labour Court. Her appeal was premature and was not, therefore, properly before the Labour Court. On that basis alone it should have been struck off the roll.

Held, further, that it was not competent and proper for the Labour Court to determine the respondent's appeal, which should have been determined by the appeals committee. It could only do so if there was a determination to appeal against.

Held, further, that the correct course for the respondent should have been to seek an order compelling the appeals committee to determine her appeal.