News / National
Zimra officer loses job over ZWL$157,000 undercharge
1 hr ago |
18 Views
A FORMER Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA) officer has lost his final bid to overturn his dismissal after the Supreme Court upheld his termination over the undercharging of warehouse rental fees by ZWL$157 836.96.
Innocent Sithole's legal battle with ZIMRA began after a warehouse assessment in November 2020 and went through the authority's internal appeals process and the Labour Court before reaching the Supreme Court.
The country's highest court has now dismissed his appeal and ordered him to pay the costs of the proceedings.
The dispute arose on November 24, 2020, when Sithole assessed warehouse charges on goods weighing 61.12 tonnes that had been held for 44 days.
He charged ZWL$5 280 for warehouse rental. However, findings against him established that the assessment had resulted in an undercharge of ZWL$157 836.96.
The assessment also failed to include applicable duty, penalties and interest.
ZIMRA subsequently investigated Sithole and charged him with misconduct under Group D25 of the authority's Employment Code of Conduct.
He was found guilty by the Disciplinary and Grievance Committee and dismissed from employment.
Sithole appealed to ZIMRA's Appeals Committee, but the committee upheld the dismissal.
He then approached the Labour Court seeking to have the decision overturned. The Labour Court also dismissed his challenge and upheld the termination in 2025.
Sithole subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing, among other things, that the disciplinary authorities had failed to properly consider mitigating circumstances before imposing the sanction of dismissal.
He relied on Section 12B(4) of the Labour Act, which requires the seriousness of misconduct and any mitigating circumstances to be considered when determining whether dismissal is fair.
The Supreme Court accepted that mitigation can be relevant when determining whether dismissal is fair, but found that Sithole had failed to raise the issue before ZIMRA's Appeals Committee.
Writing the judgment, Justice Samuel Kudya said there was no merit in Sithole's first two grounds of appeal and that the evidence clearly established that he had committed the misconduct.
On the mitigation argument, the court found that ZIMRA's Appeals Committee had not been given an opportunity to consider the issue because it had not been properly raised before it.
The court rejected Sithole's argument, effectively finding that he could not rely on mitigation at the appeal stage when the relevant internal tribunal had not been given an opportunity to consider it.
The Supreme Court consequently dismissed the appeal with costs, bringing Sithole's lengthy legal battle against his dismissal to an end.
Innocent Sithole's legal battle with ZIMRA began after a warehouse assessment in November 2020 and went through the authority's internal appeals process and the Labour Court before reaching the Supreme Court.
The country's highest court has now dismissed his appeal and ordered him to pay the costs of the proceedings.
The dispute arose on November 24, 2020, when Sithole assessed warehouse charges on goods weighing 61.12 tonnes that had been held for 44 days.
He charged ZWL$5 280 for warehouse rental. However, findings against him established that the assessment had resulted in an undercharge of ZWL$157 836.96.
The assessment also failed to include applicable duty, penalties and interest.
ZIMRA subsequently investigated Sithole and charged him with misconduct under Group D25 of the authority's Employment Code of Conduct.
He was found guilty by the Disciplinary and Grievance Committee and dismissed from employment.
Sithole appealed to ZIMRA's Appeals Committee, but the committee upheld the dismissal.
He then approached the Labour Court seeking to have the decision overturned. The Labour Court also dismissed his challenge and upheld the termination in 2025.
Sithole subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing, among other things, that the disciplinary authorities had failed to properly consider mitigating circumstances before imposing the sanction of dismissal.
He relied on Section 12B(4) of the Labour Act, which requires the seriousness of misconduct and any mitigating circumstances to be considered when determining whether dismissal is fair.
The Supreme Court accepted that mitigation can be relevant when determining whether dismissal is fair, but found that Sithole had failed to raise the issue before ZIMRA's Appeals Committee.
Writing the judgment, Justice Samuel Kudya said there was no merit in Sithole's first two grounds of appeal and that the evidence clearly established that he had committed the misconduct.
On the mitigation argument, the court found that ZIMRA's Appeals Committee had not been given an opportunity to consider the issue because it had not been properly raised before it.
The court rejected Sithole's argument, effectively finding that he could not rely on mitigation at the appeal stage when the relevant internal tribunal had not been given an opportunity to consider it.
The Supreme Court consequently dismissed the appeal with costs, bringing Sithole's lengthy legal battle against his dismissal to an end.
Source - The Herald
Join the discussion
Loading comments…
