In a move that is likely to cost the state owned telecommunications company, NetOne, a significant amount, the Acting Chairperson Susan Mutangadura has taken upon herself without the input of other board members to challenge a High Court ruling.

Mutangadura has now appealed at costs to the supreme court , a move which has ruffled feathers within the board.

NetOne board members who are still smutting from an embarrassing high court ruling that forced them to abide and recognize basic corporate governance are now bitter and showing cracks in the board, as Acting Chairperson is reported to have unilaterally challenged the High Court without board approval through a supreme court appeal.

Sources close to the developments have stated that the acting chairperson is out to settle her personal agendas at the expense of NetOne and its integrity as she now runs NetOne like her own private business.

“We were never called for that board meeting, it was not part of our agenda and no one from the board recommended that move to the chairperson, we are shocked to learn that we are appealing, there is no respect of basic corporate governance at NetOne “ said a board member who could not be named for security reasons.

After recently receiving a high court ruling to reinstate fired senior employees and respect corporate governance at the state owned entity, Mutangadura has filed a court challenge with the supreme court as she appeals against the court’s decision to reinstate fired executives.

In a shocking offer, through her lawyers, Mutangadura wrote to the supreme court that she is appealing at cost *xxx* , meaning that she wants NetOne to even pay the respondents for the legal costs as all she wants to see is an appeal in the court although the initial judgement has been read by many as precedent and obvious.

Through her solicitors, Mutangadura offered financial court cover to the respondents and plaintiff stating that in terms of rule 46(i) of the supreme court rules 2018, the appellant tenders the costs for the preparation of the record in full as soon as same have been determined.

Take further notice that the appellant tenders security for the first and second Respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Mutangadura is arguing that the High Court judge erred in her decision by stating that the court a quo misdirected itself in determining without jurisdiction, a labor matter.

“Having found that the common law right to terminate a permanent contract of employment on notice was not amended b the provisions of the amendment Act 5 of 2015. The a quo misdirected itself in holding that the appellant ‘s termination of the first and second respondents’ permanent contracts of employment without giving them reasons therefore was a nullity “.

However, the argument that Mutangadura is forwarding and appealing against have been recently overtaken by circumstances with the recent High court ruling again going against the termination of contract.

The Supreme Court in a similar case last week har ordered the Air Zimbabwe to reinstate 300 fired employees or fully compensate them for the years they have been prejudiced.

Appealing against such a precedence will be an obvious and deliberate total waste of state money in pursuit of personal ego and interests.

Some analysts have questioned if they are no kick backs being traded with the legal teams as millions are already being towards an unjustifiable bill.

If this case is going to appear or sit atleast 5 times at the supreme court, Netone will be obliged to pay more than 50 million for the first respondent Loveness Goverah, $30 Million, while for the 2nd respondent Tauya another 30 Million which can total up to $110 Million RTGS for a case they are highly likely to lose.

Even if they must win the case, NetOne must not be spending another $100 million jut to send a message but must working towards a decent compensation for their long serving employees whom some had clocked over 20years, only to be fired for no valid but mere personal reasons.