Gibson Matengu Kawiwi v Zambia Electricity Supply Corporation (Appeal 81 of 2000) [2001] ZMSC 155 (26 June 2001)

IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR ZAMBIA APPEAL NO.81/2000 HOLDEN AT LUSAKA (CIVIL JURISDICTION) GIBSON MATENGU KAWIWI APPELLANT AND ZAMBIA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION RESPONDENT CORAM: SAKALA, A. DCJ, CHIRWA. LEWANIKA JJS On 8th February, 2001 and ..^r^?. C7,..-?.'rN7fr2001 For the Appellant: M. J. M. PIKITI of Pikiti and Company For the Respondent: Mrs. N. VUKOVIC and J. KALUKONI, Leeal Counsel for ___________________ ZESCO._______________________________ Lewanika JS, delivered judgment of the court. JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the decision of a Judge of the High Court dismissing the Appellant’s claim for a declaration that his dismissal from employment was null and void and for an order reinstating him in employment with full benefits and/or on the alternative, damages for wrongful dismissal. The evidence on record is that the Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a Senior Accountancy Assistant and one of his duties was to prepare and pay the wages of casual employees in the employ of the Respondent. An audit was carried out on 4th September, 1995 which revealed that for the months of June, July and August an amount of KI. 178,100.00 in wages for casual workers could not be accounted for. The Appellant was suspended from employment and put on a disciplinary charge. He appeared before a disciplinary Committee which found him culpable and recommended - .12 - his dismissal. He appealed to an appeals committee which dismissed his appeal. It is significant to note that on both occasions the Appellant did not contest his culpability but merely asked for leniency. The learned trial Judge found that the Respondent had complied with all the disciplinary procedures contained in the collective agreement as well as the rules of natural justice and dismissed the Appellant’s claim. Counsel for the Appellant has advanced nine grounds of appeal in support of the appeal. The main thrust of his argument seems to be that the learned trial judge erred by not accepting the fact that the Appellant was misled by his union officials who wrongly advised him to accept the charges leveled against him. Alternatively that the Appellant was coerced into making a confession by a promise made to him by the Respondent’s management that he would only be paid his terminal benefits if he admitted the alleged offences. We have considered these arguments but they are not supported by the evidence on record. In truth there is no merit in this appeal which we dismiss accordingly. In view of the Appellant’s circumstances, we make no order as to costs. E. L. Sakala ACTING DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE D. K.. Chirwa SUPREME-COURT JUDGE JD. M. Eewanika SUPREME COURT JUDGE