Online Reporter
Nyore Madzianike
Senior Reporter
A SECURITY guard, who lost his job over allegations of stealing a tin of pilchards fish in 2009, has suffered a double blow after failing to get reinstated and having his final appeal thrown out by the Supreme Court for lack of merit, 15 years later.
Julius Sibanda, formerly employed by one of Innscor Africa Limited’s outlets, was dismissed from work on May 4, 2009, following a disciplinary hearing that found him guilty of theft.
Since then, Sibanda has fought a protracted legal battle to regain his job, one that culminated in defeat at the highest level after the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal.
Supreme Court judge Justice Nicholas Mathonsi, in his judgment, noted that Sibanda delayed in taking the appeal, describing it as “extraordinarily inordinate” and noted that more than eight years have lapsed since the application for leave was dismissed by the Labour Court.
The court added that it was not satisfied that the delay was sufficiently explained. Despite Sibanda’s insistence that the tin of fish was planted in his belongings, the court found that his case lacked both legal merit and prospects of success.
His initial appeal to the National Employment Council (NEC)’s Local Joint Committee was dismissed, and in December 2014, the Labour Court upheld the dismissal.
That court remarked that while Sibanda was old and unsophisticated, the evidence against him was solid.
The Supreme Court also noted that Sibanda’s proposed appeal sought to challenge factual findings, which is not permissible under section 92F of the Labour Act, as appeals to the Supreme Court can only be made on points of law.
“An examination of the proposed grounds of appeal shows that the applicant intends to thrust against the factual findings of the Labour Court.
“The applicant cannot do so,” said Justice Mathonsi. The court also criticised Sibanda’s handling of the process, saying, “If his view was that the disciplinary committee proceedings were incomplete, his remedy would have been to enforce their completion.
“He cannot then criticise the lower courts for determining what he placed before them.” Adding to his woes, the court found the delay in filing the application unconscionable due to the degradation of records over time and changes in the company’s management, making a fair hearing nearly impossible.
“The matter is being dealt with on the basis of a reconstructed record and the control of the company which employed the applicant has changed hands. The application is dismissed with no order as to costs,” ruled Justice Mathonsi.
