DISTRIBUTABLE
(62)
Judgment
No. SC 80/04
Civil
Appeal No. 223/01
TENDAI
MASWENYA v STANDARD CHARTERED BANK
SUPREME
COURT OF ZIMBABWE
SANDURA JA,
ZIYAMBI JA & GWAUNZA JA
HARARE,
JUNE 24 & SEPTEMBER 28, 2004
M
C Mukome, for the
appellant
C
Phiri, for the
respondent
GWAUNZA
JA: The appellant was employed by the respondent as a bank teller
at its Rusape Branch. He was dismissed from his employment
on
13 November 1996, after being found guilty of negligence
causing a substantial loss to the bank, an offence committed
while
a prior final written warning was still operative. He
unsuccessfully appealed against the dismissal to the grievances and
disciplinary committee, the appeals committee and the Employment
Council for the Banking Undertaking (the Council). In its
turn, the Labour Relations Tribunal (the Tribunal) (now the
Labour Court) dismissed the appellants appeal against the decision
of the Council. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the
appellant has now appealed to this Court.
It is common cause that the
appellant, who was employed as a bank teller, was on 26 January
1996 charged with certain acts
of misconduct related to his work, and
issued with a final written warning. According to the respondents
Code of Conduct, the
terms of a final written warning, which is valid
for twelve months, are breached if the employee concerned is
convicted of
another act of misconduct before the expiry of the
twelve months.
According
to the evidence before the Tribunal, the appellant was transferred to
the respondents Nyanga Branch after the final
written warning was
issued. He was recalled to the Rusape Branch in November 1996 and
committed the offence in question on the
second day of his return to
that Branch. The respondent, it is averred, had hoped that the
appellants work performance would
have improved after his time at
the Nyanga Branch.
Although
the offence in question did not attract the penalty of dismissal, the
fact that it had that consequence was explained as
follows during the
first disciplinary hearing:
The
above offence was found to fall into category C carrying a
penalty of severe written warning. As the officer
was already
on a Final Warning and in line with our Code of Conduct,
offences still running are progressive hence Mr Maswenya
was
dismissed
.
The
appellant admitted being responsible for the loss to the respondent,
of $1 000. His main defence was that the amount
of $1 000
was not substantial, given that, in terms of the respondents
standing instructions, the threshold of difference
that bank tellers
were allowed, at the time, was $5 000. His other defence was
that the respondent had disregarded the procedure
laid down in its
standing instructions, which required that a deficiency by a teller
should be brought to the attention of the Branch
Operations Manager,
who would determine the appropriate action to take.
The appellants counsel,
Mr Mukome,
contended in this respect that the court a quo
erred in law by not investigating the evidence before it, to
the effect that proper procedures had not been followed upon
discovery
of the shortfall. He then sought leave to amend the
appellants grounds of appeal to include the prayer that the appeal
be allowed
and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for a proper
consideration of the evidence on that matter. As the application
was not opposed
by the respondent, the Court granted the application
for leave to thus amend the appellants grounds of appeal.
The appellants grounds of
appeal were to the effect that the court a quo
erred in disregarding, in respect of the appellants two defences,
issues of fact that had clearly been placed before it.
I am satisfied that the grounds
raise points of law and that the appeal is accordingly properly
before this Court. See in this respect
National
Foods Ltd v Magadza
SC-105-95, in which it was stressed that a disregard of evidence
placed before the Tribunal, and therefore failure to weigh up the
significance of such evidence, constitutes gross irregularity,
amounting to misdirection in law, on the part of the Tribunal.
I
am, however, not persuaded that there is merit in the appellants
grounds of appeal.
The appellant committed the
offence in question whilst still under penalty of a final written
warning. This, rather than the quantum
or extent of the prejudice
to the respondent, was the circumstance that determined the penalty
of dismissal. It is not in dispute
that had the subsequent offence
been committed in the absence, or beyond the currency, of the final
written warning, it would have
attracted the category C
penalty of a severe written warning.
The
appellant did not dispute that the final written warning was still
operative. He, however, sought to avoid the consequence
of
committing the subsequent offence by arguing that the offences were
different and, therefore, that the earlier offences had no
bearing on
the later one.
The
Tribunal, in my view, correctly dismissed this argument. Among the
earlier offences committed by the appellant were concealing
a
difference (surplus) in your cash by making a lot of cancellations
which seem fraudulent and incompetence resulting from
numerous
differences
.
A
reading of the respondents standing instructions on the management
of cash by its tellers and controlling officers shows that
the
earlier offences, like the one under consideration, constituted a
violation of such instructions. That being the case, I find
there
is no basis for the appellants attempt to draw a distinction
between the earlier and later offences.
Once it was established, as the
Tribunal correctly found, that the offence under consideration
properly attracted the penalty of dismissal
by virtue of having been
committed during the currency of the final written warning, it became
irrelevant, in my view, whether the
prejudice to the respondent was
substantial or insubstantial. Nor was it relevant, after the
appellants admission of the offence,
whether or not the procedure
he referred to was followed. As already indicated, what was
relevant was the commission of the offence
in the circumstances
outlined. The procedures referred to, even had they been followed,
would not have negated the commission of
the offence in question.
There
was, in the result, no misdirection proved against the Tribunal in
the judgment that it passed.
The
appeal has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed with costs.
SANDURA JA:
I agree.
ZIYAMBI
JA: I agree.
Muvingi & Mugadza,
appellant's legal practitioners
Coghlan,
Welsh and Guest,
respondent's legal practitioners