Labour Court upholds IPMZ director’s dismissal

Zimbabwe executive director who was found guilty of stealing the firm’s television set.
Arbitrator, Mr George Nasho found Lawrence Dahwa guilty on March 20 2008 after an arbitration award that ordered his dismissal.
According to the theft charges, Dahwa acted on behalf of IPMZ and purchased property including a television set.
The purchase was done using IPMZ money and the television set was entered in the organisation’s register of assets.
However, Dahwa took the television set and the company laid charges against him.
In oral submissions to the arbitrator, Dahwa stated that he bought the property on behalf of IPMZ and the seller offered him curtains and the television.
He acknowledged that he used IPMZ money to buy the television, but stated that it was a loan that he extended to himself in his capacity as the executive director.
Dahwa said he instructed the accountant to ensure the loan was properly recorded.
The arbitrator rejected this explanation and ordered his dismissal.
Dahwa then appealed to the Labour Court against the arbitration ruling.
On realising that the executive director had been fired, IPMZ filed a cross appeal against the arbitration ruling, presumably to save Dahwa’s job.
IPMZ was disagreeing with the findings on the other charges of misconduct levelled against the executive director.
In his grounds of appeal, Dahwa argued the arbitrator erred on a point of law when he found him guilty on a charge of theft when there had been no cogent evidence led by respondent establishing that he had acted with a criminal intention to deprive the employer of the television set.
Dahwa further argued the arbitrator misdirected himself when he imposed the penalty of dismissal without being satisfied about mitigatory factors that worked heavily in his favour.
However, Labour Court president Mr Godfrey Musariri agreed with the arbitrator’s conclusion to fire Dahwa.
Mr Musariri said the claim that the money was a loan Dahwa granted himself were just improbable, as no agreement was produced and no credible witness confirmed the alleged loan.
“Theft, as in matters involving dishonesty, invariably attract the penalty of dismissal.
“Appellant as the chief executive officer abused the trust and misappropriated respondent’s assets.
He enriched himself at his employer’s expense and in the process set a terrible precedent for his subordinates,” said Mr Musariri. He expressed shock at IPMZ’s cross appeal, which he considered misguided as the arbitration ruling was in its favour.
Mr Musariri said IPMZ’s disagreement with the findings on the other charges of misconduct were an academic issue.
“Whether or not the arbitrator was correct on those charges, the result remains the same and the appellant stands dismissed for misconduct,” said Mr Musariri.
He dismissed Dahwa’s appeal as well as IPMZ’s cross-appeal.