Court orders fresh hearing

Charges against Walter Sibanda were that he and a colleague were tasked with taking examination papers to be shredded from Harare to Kadoma. They were to witness destruction of the papers, and this was a very important assignment.
Leakage of the papers would imperil the credibility of impending national examinations, hence the assignment of two security officers to oversee the whole process.

Sibanda and his colleague took the papers to Kadoma. However, at Kadoma, the duo unlocked the container for Kadoma Paper Mills staff to offload, then left them unguarded as they proceeded to get some lunch.
The food outlets were a distance from Kadoma Paper Mills and they were absent for 15 minutes.
In his written statement, Sibanda said that upon their return, they discovered the unshredded papers, which they put in the pulp machine.

However, some papers had been stolen and after finding the duo guilty, RBZ proceeded to impose the penalty of dismissal. The two were not asked to make any submissions in mitigation. Aggrieved by the dismissal, Sibanda then lodged an appeal with the Labour Court seeking reinstatement. Sibanda argued that RBZ failed to show good cause to believe that he was guilty of any particular offence.
He submitted that he was not grossly incompetent or inefficient in the performance of his duties.

Sibanda further argued that the decision by RBZ was severely harsh as it failed to take into consideration the requirements of the Labour Act.
Labour Court president Mr Godfrey Musariri noted that Sibanda had abandoned the very task he was given whilst he attended to the needs of his belly. Mr Musariri said: “As a result, the very mischief he ought to prevent happened. The papers leaked and ended up in the hands of God knows who or how many people.

“Clearly, the impending national examinations were discredited. I consider that the offence was proved on a balance of probabilities.”
However, Mr Musariri said RBZ did not deal with the penalty properly as mitigating factors within the peculiar knowledge of Sibanda were not considered. In other words, Sibanda should have been called to make submissions in mitigation.
Mr Musariri then set aside Sibanda’s dismissal and remitted the matter back to the RBZ disciplinary authority for a re-hearing. However, Sibanda shall be deemed to be on suspension without pay and benefits.