A Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA) revenue officer who was dismissed after undercharging warehouse rent by ZWL$157,836.96 has lost his appeal at the Supreme Court, which upheld his dismissal and ordered him to pay costs.
Innocent Sithole was charged with misconduct under Group D25 of ZIMRA’s Employment Code of Conduct after he allegedly failed to properly assess charges on goods weighing 61.12 tonnes.
The Supreme Court heard that on November 24, 2020, Sithole generated assessment number YI28376 on receipt number R313955 for the collection of warehouse rent for 44 days, charging ZWL$5,280.
However, the court found that he had undercharged by ZWL$157,836.96 and had also failed to charge duty, penalties and interest on the goods.
Sithole appeared before ZIMRA’s Disciplinary and Grievance Committee, which found him guilty and dismissed him from employment.
His appeal to ZIMRA’s Appeals Committee was unsuccessful, prompting him to approach the Labour Court.
The Labour Court dismissed his appeal on August 29, 2025, finding that he had failed to charge and raise the required penalties and that his conduct was inconsistent with the express and implied terms of his employment contract.
He then approached the Supreme Court, arguing, among other things, that the internal disciplinary tribunals had failed to properly consider mitigation before imposing the dismissal penalty.
His lawyer, B. Magogo, ultimately focused the appeal on the mitigation issue, arguing that the Labour Court should have invited submissions on mitigation in terms of Section 12B(4) of the Labour Act.
The provision requires an adjudicating authority, when considering the fairness of a dismissal, to consider the gravity of the misconduct as well as whether mitigation justified a penalty other than dismissal.
ZIMRA’s lawyer, S. Bhebhe, opposed the appeal, arguing that mitigation had not been raised before the Appeals Committee and therefore could not subsequently be used to challenge its decision before the Labour Court.
The Supreme Court agreed with ZIMRA.
Writing the judgment, Justice Samuel Kudya said there was no merit in Sithole’s appeal against the finding that he had committed misconduct.
“Our view is that the first and second grounds of appeal have no merit,” Justice Kudya said.
The court said the evidence “clearly showed that he committed the misconduct complained of.”
On the mitigation argument, the court found that the issue had never been properly placed before the Appeals Committee.
“It is the Court’s view that there is merit in the submissions made on behalf of the respondent,” Justice Kudya said.
“While we make no pronouncement on whether the Employment Code of Conduct could omit the hearing of mitigation, there is no doubt that the issue of mitigation was not placed before the Appeals Committee.”
The court said the Appeals Committee had not been given an opportunity to determine the issue. Therefore, it could not later be used as a ground for challenging its decision.
“The appeal has no merit. It ought to fail,” Justice Kudya said.
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Mathonsi, Chitakunye and Kudya, dismissed the appeal and ordered Sithole to pay ZIMRA’s legal costs.
“The appeal is dismissed with costs,” the court ordered.
