Zimbabwe court declines to hear case between CIO and employee

Labour Court judge Justice Bridget Tapiwa Chivizhe has ruled that the Labour Court does not have jurisdiction over a case involving the Central Intelligence Organisation (CIO) and an employee, Cloddie Shumba, who was dismissed for allegedly signing two unauthorized contracts worth over US$70,000.

Justice Chivizhe determined that the matter falls outside the Labour Court's purview as it pertains to a disciplined force.

Shumba, a Divisional Intelligence Officer, brought the case to the Labour Court after a disciplinary committee found him guilty and demoted him. He was accused of signing two contracts with Leggim Enterprises valued at US$48,978.76 and US$28,124.20 for construction projects without authorization from the Chief Procurement Officer (CPO), PIO Nicholas Rgwambiwa. Shumba was also alleged to have awarded a contract to the company against instructions to only purchase materials and have the CIO's Material Resources Management (MRM) Artisanal Section handle the renovations.

Justice Chivizhe struck the case from the roll, siding with the CIO, which argued that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction due to the CIO's status as a disciplined force.

"After considering the parties' submissions and the relevant authorities, the court finds the point raised by the CIO is clearly merited. The Labour Act applies to all employees except those expressly excluded by the Act. Section 3(3) of the Act excludes members of a disciplined force, which includes the CIO," stated Chivizhe.

The judge found that the interpretation of section 3(3) could not be reasonably contested and that precedent supported this interpretation. As a result, the court's jurisdiction was ousted, making it improper for the court to hear the case.

"The present appeal, not being properly placed before the court, is hereby struck off the roll with costs," ruled Chivizhe.

The disciplinary hearing found that Shumba's conduct violated several paragraphs of the Code of Conduct for the Department of State for National Security, including abuse of authority. Shumba denied failing to update PIO Rgwambiwa on the project's progress and claimed he provided regular updates for quality control, expecting the CPO to oversee his submissions due to his probationary status.

Despite Shumba's defense, the disciplinary committee found him guilty of initiating construction projects without approval. Aggrieved, Shumba appealed, arguing that the committee had erred in its findings and that he was wrongly found guilty of negligence. He also contended that his demotion was unfairly harsh compared to the warnings given to other employees involved in similar offenses.

The CIO successfully argued that section 3(3) of the Labour Act exempts disciplined forces, including those employed in the President's office on security duties, from the Labour Court's jurisdiction.