Nyore Madzianike-Senior Reporter
THE Labour Court has criticised the handling of disciplinary proceedings against former City of Kwekwe procurement manager, Todd Tavarera, and ordered that his hearing be heard afresh.
Justice Garudzo Ziyadhuma, sitting at the Gweru High Court, decided Tavarera’s conjoined appeal and review application challenging his dismissal.
The court ruled that the council’s Appeals Committee had misdirected itself by refusing to consider procedural complaints raised by Tavarera during his internal appeal.
Tavarera had challenged the decision of the Appeals Committee, chaired by Kadoma City Council Town Clerk Mr M. Dondo, which confirmed his dismissal following disciplinary proceedings held in May and June this year.
The court heard that Tavarera was reinstated on May 18, 2026, following an arbitral award, after having been on suspension without pay and benefits since October 2024.
However, on the day of his reinstatement, he was served with a fresh suspension letter outlining allegations relating to procurement irregularities and was summoned to attend a disciplinary hearing the following morning.
The charges included alleged irregularities in a tender for solar and electrical lights, defiance of instructions to establish a functional procurement system, and deficiencies highlighted in the Procurement Regulatory Authority of Zimbabwe’s 2024 Annual Compliance Review Report.
The allegations included a claim that technical specifications introduced after the tender closed increased the projected cost from US$98 000 to US$557 000, potentially prejudicing the council by US$459 000.
Tavarera was charged with misconduct, wilful disobedience, fraud, habitual and substantial neglect of duties, and gross incompetence or inefficiency.
He argued that he had inadequate time to prepare his defence and was not provided with supporting documents before the hearing commenced. He also raised concerns over the manner in which the disciplinary proceedings were conducted.
The hearing began on May 19, 2026 before a committee chaired by the Chamber Secretary. Five witnesses testified on the solar-lights tender before proceedings were adjourned.
Documents underlying the charges were subsequently furnished, with the parties differing on whether they were received on May 28, or May 30. The hearing resumed on June 1, when Tavarera appeared with a legal practitioner.
The committee found him guilty of all five charges and dismissed him with effect from May 18, 2026.
On appeal, the Appeals Committee overturned the conviction relating to habitual and substantial neglect of duties, but upheld the other four convictions and the dismissal.
Justice Ziyadhuma rejected the council’s preliminary objections, including arguments that the review application had cited the wrong procedural rule and sought incompetent relief.
The Judge held that the failure to cite Rule 19(3) of the Labour Court Rules was not fatal because Rule 20 remained the substantive provision governing review applications.
The court also found that the Appeals Committee had wrongly restricted the scope of the internal appeal by declining to consider procedural irregularities.
“Nothing in the Code imposes that limitation,” Justice Ziyadhuma said in reference to the committee’s approach.
The Judge further noted that an employee was required to exhaust internal remedies before approaching the court, making it inappropriate to prevent Tavarera from challenging the disciplinary decision endorsed by the Appeals Committee.
The judgment also dismissed the council’s argument that the relief sought in the appeal was incompetent, noting that the Labour Court had powers to confirm, vary, reverse or set aside an appealed decision, or substitute its own order.
The applicant asked the court to find that there was no evidence on any of the four charges, to enter a verdict of not guilty and to order his reinstatement. The court has set aside the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee on review, and the conviction no longer stands.
“The question that remains under this ground is whether the record establishes that the applicant is entitled to an acquittal, rather than a rehearing. It does not.
“A person who may be guilty of misconduct should not escape its consequences because the disciplinary proceedings were improperly conducted. He escapes them because he is innocent,” he said.
Source: Labour Court faults council’s disciplinary process – herald
COMMENTS