The corruption case against former Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Governor Dr Gideon Gono brought to court by his former advisor Dr Munyaradzi Kereke is set to proceed to hearing after the Constitutional Court last Friday ruled on a preliminary point.
The court granted an application by Dr Kereke for Prosecutor-General Mr Johannes Tomana and police Commissioner-General Augustine Chihuri to be cited as fellow respondents in the corruption case facing Dr Gono and the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission.
Dr Kereke approached the court in 2013 making several allegations against Dr Gono, including that he allegedly sold gold from Fidelity Printers and Refiners at a discount of 34 percent to foreigners at a time Zimbabwe had foreign currency shortages.
The full Constitutional Court bench led by Chief Justice Godfrey Chidyausiku ordered that Mr Tomana and Comm-Gen Chihuri be the third and fourth respondents, respectively in the corruption case.
“The 3rd and 4th respondents be and are hereby given leave to file any such papers as they may deem necessary within a period of 10 days of the date of this order,” ordered the court.
The court did not issue an order on costs.
The Constitutional Court had reserved ruling in November 2014 on whether or not Mr Tomana and Comm-Gen Chihuri should be cited as respondents in the case.
In the main case filed in December 2013, Dr Kereke wants a declaration that the refusal by ZACC to investigate the allegations was a breach of its constitutional mandate.
He is seeking to compel ZACC to investigate and arrest Dr Gono on allegations of theft, corruption and fraud committed at the time he was at the helm of the RBZ.
Dr Kereke argued that ZACC was acting unconstitutionally by failing to probe allegations of abuse of public office, corruption and theft against Dr Gono.
He said he wrote to ZACC in 2013 outlining Dr Gono’s alleged corruption between 2006 and 2009 when he was the central bank governor.
Dr Kereke alleged that Dr Gono took more than $37,5 million, R1,4 million and £21 500 from State coffers and converted it to his personal use. He accused Dr Gono of circulating Cabinet minutes and military files to hostile foreign governments in breach of the Official Secrets Act.
He said he had proof to back the allegations and was ready to present it. Dr Gono, it is alleged, abused his authority by borrowing more than $40 million through his companies.
Dr Kereke said he wondered how Dr Gono would perform his supervisory role after borrowing such huge sums from local banks.
Another allegation was that Dr Gono sold gold bullion to a private jewellery company in Saudi Arabia at a 34 percent discount. Dr Kereke accused Dr Gono of misrepresenting to Government the true status of the International Monetary Fund debt by claiming the country had cleared it.
He further alleged that in 2009, Dr Gono casually wrote an instruction on a scrap paper for a junior officer to transfer $1,5 million into former Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai’s bank account and the money has allegedly not been recovered.
Dr Kereke also alleged that Dr Gono took $200 000 from the Reserve Bank coffers and gave it to the Financial Gazette newspaper, in which he is the majority shareholder.
He claimed that ZACC commissioners were given money by Dr Gono for holidays when the country was facing economic challenges.
Dr Gono responded by dismissing the allegations as patently false. He said the allegations were “malicious”, “vindictive”, “vitriolic” and calculated at frustrating his nomination as a Zanu-PF Senator.
Dr Gono said the RBZ was audited regularly by reputable auditors like KPMG, Deloitte and Touché and BDO Kudenga, and no such fraud was discovered. In another case, Fidelity Printers and Refiners executives are in court facing fraud charges involving $2,6 million from the company wholly owned by the RBZ.

More than 20 people were murdered in the last six months in cases involving crimes of passion.
The Zimbabwe Republic Police (ZRP) said most of the victims were women who were killed at the hands of their abusive husbands.
“We are very worried by the increase in murder cases involving couples and as police, we encourage people to seek relevant counselling when facing marital problems,” said ZRP Spokesperson, Senior Assistant Commissioner Charity Charamba.
With life and death at stake, debate rages, whether abused spouses should soldier on to protect their marriages.
Some believe marriage is not worth risking one’s life for while others believe matters of the heart are too complex to prescribe solutions.
On the 13th of June this year, a Buhera man, Never Mutebuka axed to death his wife Mollen Zivengwa, accusing her of causing bad luck in the family.
Recently, a Shurugwi man murdered his three children before committing suicide in a dispute over the custody of children.

Judgment No. SC 43/15 8 -, Civil Appeal No. SC 281/14

Click here to download the raw PDF file

REPORTABLE (39)
(1) DON NYAMANDE (2) KINGSTONE DONG A
ZUVA PETROLEUM (PRIVATE) LIMITED
SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE
CHIDYAUSIKU CJ, GWAUNZA JA, GARWE JA, HLATSHWAYO JA & GUVAVA JA
HARARE, FEBRUARY 3 & JULY 17, 2015
L Madhuku, with him C Mucheche, for the appellants
T Mpofu, for the respondent
CHIDYAUSIKU CJ: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Labour Court delivered on 28 March 2014 allowing termination of the appellants’ employment contracts on notice.
The facts of this case are common cause. They are as follows. The appellants were employed by BP Shell as supply and logistics manager and finance manager. BP Shell sold its services as a going concern to Zuva Petroleum, the respondent. A transfer of undertaking was done in terms of s 16 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and an agreement of sale concluded. The appellants were transferred to the new undertaking without derogation from the terms and conditions of employment that they enjoyed when they were under BP Shell.
On 21 November 2011 the respondent offered its employees, who included the appellants, a voluntary retrenchment package which was declined. On 15 December 2011 the respondent served each of its employees, including the appellants, with a compulsory notice of intention to retrench.
 
The appellants and the respondent could not agree on the retrenchment terms. Having failed to agree on the terms of retrenchment, the parties referred the dispute to the Retrenchment Board. On 16 May 2012 the Ministry of Labour and Social Services directed the parties to carry out further retrenchment negotiations for another twenty-one days. On 18 May 2012, and before the expiry of the twenty-one days, the respondent wrote letters to the appellants, terminating their contracts of employment on notice, as was provided for in the contracts of employment signed by both parties, with effect from 1 June 2012.
 
The respondent paid the appellants cash in lieu of notice and thus terminated the employment relationship. The appellants approached a labour officer, contending that their employment contracts had been unlawfully terminated. The labour officer failed to resolve the matter and referred it to compulsory arbitration. The arbitrator concluded that the termination of the contracts of employment was unlawful because the appellants had not been dismissed in terms of a code of conduct.
The respondent appealed to the Labour Court. The Labour Court allowed the appeal. In its judgment the Labour Court had this to say:
“In my view, therefore, the submission that section 12B came to do away with the possibility of terminating a contract of employment on notice is a misunderstanding of the law as it stands. In any event, the provisions of section 12(4) of the Act are clear and allow no ambiguity as also the provisions of section 128. None of the sections have the effect of doing away with the termination of a contract of employment on notice.”
In essence, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that neither s 12B nor s 12(4) of the Act abolished the employer’s right to terminate employment on notice. I respectfully agree with this conclusion.
The appellants were aggrieved by the judgment of the Labour Court and now appeal to this court on the following grounds:
“The Labour Court erred and seriously misdirected itself on a question of law by upholding the termination of the appellants’ contracts of employment on notice and failing to find such termination to be unfair dismissal.
The Labour Court erred and seriously misdirected itself on a question of law in failing to realise as it should have done that section 12(4) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] does not provide for the termination of a contract of employment on notice and that any such purported termination is contrary to section 1213 of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].
The Labour Court erred at law in allowing termination on notice as that amounts to allowing an employer to terminate employment for no justifiable and valid cause.”
The appellants seek the setting aside of the Labour Court judgment and its substitution with that of the arbitrator.
It would appear on the papers that the bone of contention between the parties is the legal status of the employer’s common law right to terminate an employment relationship on notice. Counsel are agreed that once upon a time both the employer and the employee had a common law right to terminate an employment relationship on notice. The point of departure appears to be that the appellants, while acknowledging that the employer’s right once existed, argue that it has since been abolished. The respondent contends that the employer’s right has not been abolished and still subsists.
It was contended for the appellants that s 12B of the Act abolished the employer’s common law right to dismiss an employee on notice.
 
In essence, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that neither s 12B nor s 12(4) of the Act abolished the employer’s right to terminate employment on notice. I respectfully agree with this conclusion.
The appellants were aggrieved by the judgment of the Labour Court and now appeal to this court on the following grounds:
“The Labour Court erred and seriously misdirected itself on a question of law by upholding the termination of the appellants’ contracts of employment on notice and failing to find such termination to be unfair dismissal.
The Labour Court erred and seriously misdirected itself on a question of law in failing to realise as it should have done that section 12(4) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] does not provide for the termination of a contract of employment on notice and that any such purported termination is contrary to section 12B of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].
The Labour Court erred at law in allowing termination on notice as that amounts to allowing an employer to terminate employment for no justifiable and valid cause.”
The appellants seek the setting aside of the Labour Court judgment and its substitution with that of the arbitrator.
It would appear on the papers that the bone of contention between the parties is the legal status of the employer’s common law right to terminate an employment relationship on notice. Counsel are agreed that once upon a time both the employer and the employee had a common law right to terminate an employment relationship on notice. The point of departure appears to be that the appellants, while acknowledging that the employer’s right once existed, argue that it has since been abolished. The respondent contends that the employer’s right has not been abolished and still subsists.
It was contended for the appellants that s 12B of the Act abolished the employer’s common law right to dismiss an employee on notice.
(1) had a legitimate expectation of being re-engaged; and
(ii) another person was engaged instead of the employee.
(4) In any proceedings before a labour officer, designated agent or the Labour Court where the fairness of the dismissal of an employee is in issue, the adjudicating authority shall, in addition to considering the nature or gravity of any misconduct on the part of the dismissed employee, consider whether any mitigation of the misconduct avails to an extent that would have justified action other than dismissal, including the length of the employee’s service, the employee’s previous disciplinary record, the nature of the employment and any special personal circumstances of the employee.”
As I have already stated, it is common cause that once upon a time both the employer and the employee had a common law right to terminate an employment relationship on notice. That common law right in respect of both the employer and the employee can only be limited, abolished or regulated by an Act of Parliament or a statutory instrument that is clearly intra vires an Act of Parliament.
I am satisfied that s 12B of the Act does not abolish the employer’s common law right to terminate employment on notice in terms of an employment contract for a number of reasons.
The time-honoured and golden rule of statutory interpretation is that you give the words of a statute their primary meaning. See National Railways of Zimbabwe Contributory Pension Fund v Edy 5-141-88; Madoda v Tanganda Tea Company Ltd 1999 (1) ZLR 374 (S); S v Masivira 1990 (1) ZLR 373 (HC); Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes 12 ed at p 28; Nyemba and Watunga v R 1961 R & N 688 (SR) at 691C-D; Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd v Minister of Lands and Anor 2008 (1) ZLR 17 (S) at 33-35; and Mawarire v Mugabe NO and Ors CCZ-01-2013.
Applying this golden rule of statutory interpretation, I see no words in s 12B of the Act that either expressly or by necessary implication abolish the employer’s common law right to terminate an employment relationship by way of notice.
It is also a well-established principle of statutory interpretation that a statute cannot effect an alteration of the common law without saying so explicitly.
This principle finds authority in the case of Phiri and Ors v Industrial Steel Pipe (Pvt) Ltd 1996 (12) ZLR 45 (5) at 49, wherein the following was stated:
“There is a presumption, in the interpretation of statutes, that Parliament does not intend a change in the common law, unless it expresses its intention with irresistible clearness or it follows by necessary implication from the language of the statute in question that it intended to effect such alteration in the common law; for construing the statute by adding to it words which are neither found therein nor for which authority could be found in the language of the statute itself, is to sin against one of the most familiar rules of construction …’: per LORD HALSBURY LC in Bank of England v Vagliano [18911 C AC 107 at 120.”
See also PTC v Mahachi 1997 (2) ZLR 71 (H); Mushaishi v Lifeline Syndicate and Anor 1990 (1) ZLR 284 (H) at 2871); and Johannesburg Municipality v Cohen’s Trustees 1909 TS 811.
Section 12B of the Act, as the main heading of that section reveals, deals with dismissal and the procedures to be followed in those instances where an employment relationship is to be terminated by way of dismissal following misconduct proceedings. The section also sets out in some detail what constitutes unfair labour practice which it outlaws. Termination of employment on notice is not among the conduct that s 12B of the Act outlaws as unfair labour practice.
Mk.’
 
The section that deals with termination of a contract of employment on notice is s 12(4) of the Act. I shall revert to this section later in this judgment.
It is also instructive to note that s 8 of the Act sets out in some detail conduct that is outlawed as unfair labour practice.
Section 8 of the Act provides as follows:
“8 Unfair labour practices by employer
An employer or, for the purpose of paragraphs (g) and (h), an employer or any other person, commits an unfair labour practice if, by act or omission, he –
prevents, hinders or obstructs any employee in the exercise of any right conferred upon him in terms of Part II; or contravenes any provision of Part II or of section eighteen; or refuses to negotiate in good faith with a workers committee or a trade union which has been duly formed and which is authorized in terms of this Act to represent any of his employees in relation to such negotiation; or refuses to co-operate in good faith with an employment council on which the interests of any of his employees are represented; or
(a) fails to comply with or to implement –
a collective bargaining agreement; or
a decision or finding of an employment council on which any of his employees are represented; or a decision or finding made under Part XII; or
any determination or direction which is binding upon him in terms of this Act; or
bargains collectively or otherwise deals with another trade union, where a registered trade union representing his employees exists; or
demands from any employee or prospective employee any sexual favour as a condition of — the recruitment for employment; or
the creation, classification or abolition of jobs or posts; or
the improvement of the remuneration or other conditions of employment of the employee; or the choice of persons for jobs or posts, training, advancement, apprenticeships, transfer, promotion or retrenchment; or
the provision of facilities related to or connected with employment: or
any other matter related to employment; or
(h) engages in unwelcome sexually-determined behaviour towards any employee, whether verbal or otherwise, such as making physical contact or advances, sexually coloured remarks, or displaying pornographic materials in the workplace.”
It is apparent from the above section that termination of employment on notice is not among the conduct outlawed by s 8 of the Act.
It is also very clear that, on a proper reading of s 12B of the Act, it deals with the method of termination of employment known as “dismissal”. While dismissal is one method of termination of employment, it is not the only method of terminating an employment relationship. It is only one of several methods of terminating employment.
In this regard, s 12C of the Act provides for the method of termination of employment known as “retrenchment”. Termination of employment by way of retrenchment is not a dismissal.
This court has held that termination of employment can be effected in other ways than dismissal. In the case of Commercial Careers College (1980) (Pvt) Ltd v Jarvis 1989 (1) ZLR 344 (5) at 349E-G, this court made the following observation:
“It is easy to conceive of a situation in which, albeit no blame whatsoever attaches to the employee, the inescapable inference is that the personal relationship between him and the employer has broken down to the extent that trust in one another has been lost, For a court to order reinstatement against such a backdrop of animosity and ill-will, solely because an employee unreasonably and out of wounded pride seeks it, would be to permit the continuation of an intolerable personal relationship – one which would make it impossible for the employee to perform his duties either to his own satisfaction or to that of his employer.”
In the Commercial Careers College case supra it was common cause that the personal relationship between the applicants and the respondent was totally destroyed. The applicants’ stance was simply that the respondent, the employer, cannot terminate their employment contracts on notice at law, but they can resign from employment Willy nilly. That proposition was rejected.
The same proposition that where the relationship between the employer and the employee has deteriorated to untenable levels through no fault of either party the relationship can be terminated was accepted in Winterton, Holmes & Hill v Paterson 1995 (2) ZLR 68 (S)•
Quite clearly, the appellants’ case is predicated on the proposition that dismissal means all forms of termination of employment. Put differently, all terminations of employment are dismissals. This proposition is not tenable on the authority of the above cases. That proposition is clearly erroneous.
The proposition that there are other methods or forms of terminating employment apart from dismissal was clearly articulated in the case of Samuriwo v Zimbabwe United Passenger Company 1999 (1) ZLR 385 (H), wherein GARWE J (as he then was) had this to say at 388E:
“The code, in compliance with s 101 of the Act, steers clear of other matters that have nothing to do with misconduct, such as termination for other reasons. Whilst it must be accepted that the code makes no provision for the managing director himself to be the subject of disciplinary proceedings, it seems to me that this is irrelevant as the termination in the present case is not sought on the basis of the code but in terms of the contract of employment.” (the emphasis is mine)
Samuriwo ‘s case supra places beyond dispute the fact that there are other ways of termination of employment different from dismissal in terms of codes of conduct following disciplinary proceedings as provided for in the codes of conduct.
The proposition that an employer has a right to terminate an employment relationship on notice in circumstances other than dismissal for misconduct finds further support in the case of Gertrude Kwaramba v Bain Industries (Pvt) Ltd SC 39/01, where this court accepted the employer’s right to terminate the employment contract on notice in no fault situations.
This case was followed in Chirasasa and Ors v Nhamo NO and Anor 2003 (2) ZLR 206 (S) where this court held that:
“In this case, the appellants agreed that there was no act of misconduct alleged against them. The parties had failed to agree on the new terms and conditions of employment proposed by the second respondent to meet the operational requirements of its business. The second respondent had a right to terminate the contracts of employment with the appellants by giving them one calendar month’s notice and could exercise it without obtaining prior written approval of the Minister. The decision in Kwaramba js case supra is, in my view, correct, whilst that in Masundire ‘s case supra is wrong.”
I am satisfied s 12B of the Act does not deal with the general concept of termination of employment. It concerns itself with termination of employment by way of dismissal in terms of a code of conduct. It sets out that which must be followed or dolt in terms of either an employment code of conduct or a national code of conduct. It does not concern itself with termination of employment by ways other than dismissal.
Section 12(4) of the Act is the section that deals with the concept of termination of employment on notice in terms of a contract of employment. It regulates the period of notice. It provides as follows:
“12 Duration, particulars and termination of employment contract
(4) Except where a longer period of notice has been provided for under a contract of employment or in any relevant enactment, and subject to subsections (5), (6) and (7), notice of termination of the contract of employment to be given by either party shall be — three months in the case of a contract without limit of time or a contract for a period of two years or more; two months in the case of a contract for a period of one year or more but less than two years; one month in the case of a contract for a period of six months or more but less than one year;
(a) two weeks in the case of a contract for a period of three months or more but less than six months;
(e) one day in the case of a contract for a period of less than three months or in the case of casual work or seasonal work.”
The wording of s 12(4) of the Act is so clear that it leaves very little room, if any, for misinterpretation. It governs the time periods that apply when employment is being terminated on notice. It stands to reason that the notice periods do not apply when an employee is dismissed. In instances of dismissal no notice is required. The periods of notice referred to in a 12(4) of the Act can only apply where there is termination of employment in terms of a process involving the giving of notice provided for in a contract of employment.
I accept the appellants’ contention that s 12(4) of the Act does not create a right to terminate employment on notice. Indeed, this contention appears to be accepted by the respondent.
The respondent’s case is that the right to terminate employment on notice is created by common law and not by statute or s 12(4) of the Act. It contends that a 12(4) of the Act simply regulates the exercise of that right conferred on the employer by common law.
There is no possible explanation, and none has been advanced, why, despite the explicit Section 12(4) of the Act explicitly applies to both the employer and the employee. language of the section, it should apply to the employee only and not to the employer; or why the section should exist to regulate a non-existent right. As Mr Mpofii aptly submitted, providing “for a time period for a right that does not exist is a puerile exercise, one which could never have been engaged in by a sane legislator”. The presumption is that Parliament must be taken to have intended its enactments to have meaning.
Section 12(4) of the Act can only have meaning if there is a substantive right, in this case the common law right to terminate employment on notice, to which it pertains. This is especially so when one considers that all that s 12(4) of the Act does is to facilitate the exercise of an existant common law right.
It is for these reasons that I agree with the conclusion of the Labour Court that the respondent was entitled at law to give notice terminating the employment of the appellants in terms of the contracts of employment between the parties.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.

GWAUNZA JA: I agree

GARWE JA: I agree

HLATSHWAY0 JA: I agree
GUVAVA JA: I agree

Matsikidze & Mucheche, appellants’ legal practitioners Atherstone & Cook, respondent’s legal practitioners

A BULAWAYO motorist yesterday told of how he was abducted, robbed and stabbed six times while his hands and feet were tied by a gang targeting motorists in Cowdray Park at a robbery hotspot that has seen five other drivers being attacked. Mqondisi Sibanda, 45, fell for a trick that the criminals employ; throwing a tyre in the middle of the road and pouncing on motorists who stop at the spot. He was attacked on Sunday last week and since then, five more motorists have fallen victim to the same ruse at the same place.
Sibanda, who is still nursing injuries from the brutal attack said he thought he was going to die as he was bound both hands and feet and thrown in the back of his Toyota Granvia vehicle.

The gang then detained him for almost three hours, while assaulting him.
“They held me from 10:30PM on Sunday last week to 1:30AM after I had slowed down my car thinking that my spare wheel had fallen off. I didn’t even get out of the vehicle as I realised that the spare wheel wasn’t mine. It was size 13 while mine is size 15,” said Sibanda, a member of the Harmony Singers for the past 20 years.
He said as he tried to drive away, three men pounced on his vehicle.
“They smashed the car windows and one of them jumped into the vehicle while the other started hitting me on the hands. I then stopped driving and they started assaulting me demanding money,” he said.
He said his attackers took away almost $600 and kept assaulting him as they demanded more money.
“They took away $500, in my jacket pocket, $60 in my trousers and $20 on the dashboard of the car. They started demanding gold saying because I had a helmet and a work-suit I owned a mine. I tried to explain that I worked for a construction company, but they continued assaulting me,” he said.
Sibanda said he was tied and thrown to the back of his car.
“I was stabbed about six times in the head, tied both hands and feet. All the blood you’re seeing in my car is a result of the stabbing.

“I never thought I was going to live. They told me they were going to kill me but didn’t want to get their hands dirty. They wanted to throw me into Denvor Dam but the car got stuck in the sand and they drove back to Cowdray Park,” he said.
Sibanda said it was because of God’s grace that he is still alive.
“I’d done all calculations and concluded that I was going to die that night. But I believe God still has a purpose for my life. All the odds were against me, but as the devil was working, God was also working and I triumphed,” he said.
Sibanda said he suspects the men were operating as a syndicate as they were picked by another car.
“They were picked by a maroon Nissan pickup which was being driven by someone whom they were constantly talking to on the phone. They looted everything that was in my car. I’d bought groceries that I wanted to send to my father at our rural home,” said Sibanda.
He said after the criminals released him, he struggled as four motorists he tried to get assistance from drove away.
“I’d to drive to Cowdray Park police sub-station but officers there were not of any help either. They said they were afraid and didn’t have a car to go and track the thieves that night. I then called my wife from the station and she took me to the United Bulawayo Hospitals where I received treatment before I was allowed to go home,” he said.
“This happened on Sunday last week and five more people have been robbed since. It leaves us to wonder what the police are doing. What’s their business if they’re failing to protect our lives? They’re only effective in traffic cases. They didn’t even come to do the investigations on time.”
He said police took three days to come to get a statement from him.
“They came to my house on Wednesday at 11:30PM. What took them all that long to start the investigation? They haven’t conducted investigations on my car. Those boys finger prints are all over,” he said.
Acting police spokesperson for Bulawayo province Assistant Inspector Abednico Ncube said police were hunting for the criminals whom he said had committed similar acts in the suburb.
“We’ve received such a report and we urge members of the public to avoid driving through those places or parking their vehicles in odd places. These criminals drop an old car tyre and as the driver gets distracted they get attacked,” said Asst Insp Ncube.
He called on members of the public to assist the police with any information that may lead to the arrest of the criminals.
He dismissed allegations that police were not acting on the matter.chronicle

Barely two days after the Supreme Court ruled that workers can be fired at anytime without any retrenchment cash, an expulsion bomb hit Zimbabwe’s workers countrywide at the weekend with hundreds being told to go home soon after the passing  of the verdict on Friday.
 
The Supreme Court passed the judgment three days ago which now allows employers to terminate workers’ contracts any time without offering them packages by merely giving them three months’ notice.
While the exact number of people  relieved  of their jobs at the weekend was not revealed, Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare Minister Prisca Mupfumira spoke out raising the alarm as she added that there is need to settle on corrective legal options to safeguard workers from being sacked willy-nilly and empty-handed by their employers.
 
Mupfumira quoted by the State Media said “the ministry is already receiving numerous complaints from workers whose contracts of employment have been terminated on notice since the court ruling.”
She said its is clear that the judgment has already opened a floodgate of termination of employment on notice, resulting in numerous workers unfairly losing their jobs.
The discussion was held on the Zimbabwe Policy Dialogue Institute where some analysts said termination on notice improves productivity.
But others led by Human Rights Lawyer Jeremiah Bamu contended saying “termination of employment must have a cause and not done willy nilly because that creates job insecurity and in the long run becomes a national burden because more and more people lose employment and become dependants when they are yet able-bodied.
 
“Termination on notice does not require cause to exist. Mere notice is sufficient. On the other hand, employees owing allegiance to their employers and the need to increase productivity is a separate issue altogether,” said Bamu.
 
But another lawyer argued the opposite saying, “employers do not employ in order to fire willy-nilly.
“They employ in order to attain their objectives.When a reason to terminate employment arises, employers should have the right to terminate.This should have nothing to do with the length of service.
 
“While from an employee ‘s perspective long service should come with “benefits”, conversely, the employer can as well say long service means the employee should be grateful for having been paid for many years.
“Kingstons collapsed because one (1)  employee obtained an outrageous arbitral-award and attached all the assets of the company.The rest of the employees suffered as result.Our labour practices were just archaic and retrogressive.”

FIRST LADY Grace Mugabe has become embroiled in a new ZANU PF war that seeks to rid the party of Environment, Water and Climate Minister Oppah Muchinguri.
The development comes after Muchinguri was exposed in a leaked audio recording which shows her loudly scheming to destroy party members. Analysts have speculated that this signals the worst turn that now threatens the very life of ZANU PF far greater than the Mujuru purges of December 2014 as it pivots on Muchinguri.
Last year Muchinguri was the centre of activity as perceived Joyce Mujuru supporters were axed from the party.
A group opposed to Muchinguri early last week suspended youth league provincial leader Kelvin Manyengawana over a leaked audio recording in which he and the former Women’s League boss were reportedly recorded “plotting against other party leaders”.
Muchinguri’s allies later hit back and suspended Mbuso Chinguno (provincial vice chairman), Victor Saunyama (secretary for administration) and Rinashe Chinamasa (secretary for security) –ring leaders in Manyengawana’s purported suspension.
In the petition copied to the national youth league as well as Grace, Manyengawana’s faction claimed the suspension of the three was for “gross misconduct and disloyalty to the party”.
The petition, signed by 26 members of the provincial youth league executive read: “They (Chinguno, Saunyama and Chinamasa) have caused divisions and undermined the authority of the First Lady and secretary for Women’s Affairs by lying that they have been instructed by the First Lady to remove part of our executive members.”
The trio also stands accused of writing to the Zanu PF national youth league executive proposing that Manyengavana be suspended “without consulting the provincial youth league and the Manicaland provincial coordinating committee”.
Contacted for comment yesterday, Zanu PF provincial youth secretary for information and publicity Gibson Mupeti said: “As youth, we want the party to be run smoothly. We have seen that these people (the suspended trio) had their own agendas, they have been using the First Lady’s name to satisfy their personal agendas, which is very wrong.”
Mupeti added the purported vote of no confidence against Manyengavana was in violation of the party’s constitution.
Grace was at the forefront of a brutal internal purge that claimed the scalps of former Vice-President Joice Mujuru in the run-up to Zanu PF’s last December congress with Muchinguri’s support but the two reportedly seem to have fallen out of favour as the internecine fights for control of the ruling party threaten to boil over. – Newsday/Additional Reporting

THE embattled Commercial Farmers Union has warned its members to be on high alert amid reports that a three-man robbery gang was on the prowl targeting farmers in the Masvingo and Midlands provinces.
CFU director Hendrik Olivier in a statement at the weekend said suspects who were linked to an armed robbery in Masvingo last month, attacked a farmer in the Mwenezi/Ngundu area on Saturday night and got away with a .45 Webley revolver.
“Please be on the lookout for three criminals who were seen driving away from the scene in a dark coloured Toyota Ipsum vehicle.
One was dressed in a brown police uniform with a cap; another was dressed in the blue police uniform and the third was dressed in (military) camouflage,” Olivier said.
“They approached the farmer wanting to check up on firearms licences and became physical when he asked for identification, tying him and his wife up and assaulting them to hand over money.
Another robbery in the Gweru area last weekend may be linked to the group. We await further details.”
He added: “In the Masvingo assault there were two pistols but they lost one in the struggle with the farmer. However, in last night (Saturday) incident they seized the farmer’s .45 Webley revolver and came with a silver 38 revolver.
Please be warned and tighten up your security.”
Olivier said the affected farmers had individually reported the matter to police.
“I am aware that our members who have been affected have reported to the police and in particular Mwenezi dealing with the issues,” he said.
National police spokesperson Senior Assistant Commissioner Charity Charamba could not be reached for comment yesterday.-SouthernEye

A 72-YEAR-old man was last week dragged to the Civil Court by his wife for denying her her conjugal rights for the past 26 years. Dorothy Kanyeda said she feared her husband Jospek Kanyeda was having ex-marital affairs.
The couple married in 1966. She now wants a peace order against her husband. “I suspect he is quenching his sexual appetite somewhere because for the past 26-years he has been denying me my conjugal rights,” she said.
Dorothy told magistrate Mr Trevor Nyatsanza that Kanyeda often sent thugs to assault her. “He said he wanted to kill me and throw my body in the bush.
“He is organising thugs to kill me and those thugs are always stalking me wherever I go,” she said.
“He sold our house in Chitungwiza and now he is threatening to evict me from our matrimonial home to accommodate his girlfriend.”
Kanyeda denied the allegations. “I am 72-years old. What will I do with a girlfriend at this age?” he said. Kanyeda said he loved Dorothy. Mr Nyatsanza ordered both parties to bring witnesses to court.

CHAIRMAN of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Transport and Infrastructure Development and Chegutu West legislator, Dexter Nduna, has been sucked into a million-dollar Zinara road rehabilitation scandal after his company got a contract, but failed to deliver despite being paid.

Documents in The Herald’s possession show that Nduna’s company, Badon Enterprises, was hand-picked by Chegutu Rural District Council to repair the 28km Musengezi-Makwiro gravel road in Mashonaland West Province.
“The council was awarded funding under the periodic disbursement category. Records show that the council entered into a contract with Badon Enterprises on 22-10-10 for the rehabilitation of Musengezi-Makwiro Road (20km) which was later extended by a further eight kilometres,” reads an audit report prepared by Zinara.
The audit was carried out in November last year.
“The following exceptions were noted — the following information was not availed to audit — bidding documents of competing contractors and resolutions detailing appointment of contractor, Badon Enterprises Pvt (Ltd), and the consulting engineer, Dande Civil Projects,” noted the report.
The contract was also overvalued.
“The consulting engineer had originally recommended in his tender evaluation report that the contract for the rehabilitation of the 20km stretch be awarded to Badon Investments (Pvt) Ltd at a cost of $681 100. However, the contract entered shows that Badon Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd was awarded at $828 451.25,” it said.
The audit report notes that the absence of bidding and resolution documentation created a gap as to full compliance of tender regulations “that specifically requires the evidence of such documentation to ensure transparency and achievement of value for money objective”.
The audit also observed that while the contract had a 10 percent provision for contingency budget overruns, that threshold was surpassed.
The budget overrun (overpayment) shows that Badon Enterprises was paid $828 481.25 for 20km and $450 000.00 for the additional 8km, translating to $1 278 848.25.
The audit notes that $2 212 508. 52 was paid as “ledger amount” signalling an overpayment of $933 660. 27.
All in all Badon Enterprises was paid $2 212 508 52 for the 28km road stretch repair work.
“The unjustified increase of $147 351.25 bid amount and contract amount has the implications that the adjudication process was not fairly done. The figure recommended by consulting engineers was $681 100 on the justification of being the low cost bidder. The contract was however entered into for $828 451. 25. This effectively defeats the issue of having a consultant,” reads the audit report.
It recommended that Chegutu Rural District Council provides the bidding and resolution documentation to expedite completion of the audit report.
“Justification is required on why the recommended bid price was adjusted by $147 351. 25. Reasons for such justification should have been well documented within the contract or minutes.”
In its response, the Chegutu Rural District Council said it was not involved in the road maintenance deal.
Council’s management said it was not involved by Zinara in the road works carried by Badon
Enterprises during the rehabilitation of Musengezi-Makwiro. The road was not completed and bridges were swept away by rains.
Chegutu Rural District Council further stated that it “was not involved in the direct payments of the contractor, Zinara can answer better”.
Zinara went on to suspend Chegutu Rural District Council from receiving funding from the road administrator until it avails all information around the rehabilitation of Musengezi-Makwiro road.
“Due to the above mentioned limitations compounded by the fact that council failed to avail the documentation as promised within the given timeframe, audit recommends that the Road Authority be suspended from receiving any further funding from Zinara until all promised information is received,” reads the audit report.
In an interview, Nduna said his hands were clean and that if there was a problem, council was answerable.
He denied that his company failed to complete the rehabilitation of Musengezi-Makwiro road as per contract and also justified the payment for the 28 km road stretch.
“We carried out all the work and the amount ballooned because it included such structures as bridges,” he said.