Online Reporter
Lovemore Kadzura
Post Reporter
IN a stinging rebuke, the Labour Court has dismissed Rusape Town Council’s appeal against the reinstatement of suspended engineer, Charles Chindenga, dealing a major blow to the local authority’s reputation.
The council had appealed against the decision of its own disciplinary authority, which had found Engineer Chindenga not guilty of allegations of incompetence, refusal to execute duties, and insulting council chairman, Lovemore Chifomboti and his vice chairperson, Ms Shylett Mutisi.
The disciplinary authority, chaired by Norton Town Clerk, Mr Kizito Muhomba, assisted by Kariba Town Clerk, Mr Richard Kamhoti, had ordered Engineer Chindenga’s reinstatement without loss of benefits, citing that councillors who led evidence against him had no supervisory role over his work.
However, when Engineer Chindenga reported back to work, he was barred from entering the premises as the aggrieved council had lodged an appeal at the Labour Court.
Represented by Advocate Regina Mabwe, the council argued that the disciplinary authority had erred at law in ordering reinstatement without considering alternative damages in lieu for reinstatement.
The Labour Court’s dismissal of the appeal has left the council facing a major embarrassment, with Engineer Chindenga’s reinstatement now set to proceed.
Rusape Town Council also argued that the Disciplinary Authority had misdirected itself at law by acquitting Engineer Chindenga on two charges, despite finding that he had failed to provide evidence of having requisitioned for the repair of the Mabvazuwa and BC housing scheme drainage.
The council submitted that the Disciplinary Authority A had erred in holding that an employee cannot be found guilty of gross incompetence or neglect for failing to act, even where a positive duty to act is required.
It also argued that the Disciplinary Authority had misdirected itself by granting only seven days for appeal against its decision, contrary to the prescribed 21-day appeal period under the Labour Court Rules.
Representing Engineer Chindenga, Mr Farai Siyakurima argued that the council had failed to prove allegations of incompetence and inefficiency.
He submitted that Engineer Chindenga possessed the requisite skills and that the witnesses who testified against him were not qualified to judge his competency as an engineer.
After analysing submissions by both parties Justice Evidence Gonesi dismissed the council’s appeal, stating that the councillors were not competent to comment on the competency and efficiency of a town engineer. The judge ruled that the appeal lacked merit and slapped the council with costs.
“Advocate Mabwe submitted that the failure to act and thereafter alleging that resources had not been furnished is proof of serious dereliction of duty on the part of the respondent, and such borders on inefficiency and incompetence.
‘‘The challenge with such an assertion is that the council did not put forward a standard measure for assessing the work by the respondent in the form of the town clerk.
“With greatest respect to the councillors, they were not competent to comment on the competency and efficiency of a town engineer. The appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs for lack of merit,” ruled Justice Gonesi.
