ZETDC foreman caged two years for transformer theft

Spread This News

By Staff Reporter

ZIMBABWE Electricity Transmission and Distribution Company (ZETDC) foreman at Mablerign Depot, Pearson Kadzviti, has been caged two years for stealing his employer’s 500 kVA transformer.

Kadzviti, who was in acting capacity, was convicted and sentenced by a Harare magistrate after a full trial.

Kadzviti will, however, serve 18 months effective after six months of his sentence was set aside on conditions.

He had appealed against conviction and sentence at the High Court, but High Court judge, Justice Benjamin Chikowero, dismissed his appeal for lack of merit.

The lower court had taken into account that he was a first offender and a family man.

The court also took into consideration that the conviction would result in him losing employment, hence the need to be a bit lenient with him.

It was ruled that his fall from grace was a punishment on its own.

Chikowero said there was no need to interfere with the magistrate’s judgment.

Court papers show that on July 4, 2013, at the company’s Mabelreign Shops depot, Kadzviti signed a transaction form authorising a bigger transformer to be put at his depot replacing the 500kva which he alleged to have developed a fault.

The state proved he took it upon himself to hire a crane and transport out of his own pocket, despite the company being in contract with another company for the provision of this service.

He then sold the transformer for $13 200 and received $8 316, which was 70 percent of the selling price.

Kadzviti had denied the allegations, but failed to lead any evidence to exonerate himself.

“This matter demonstrates the invidious position that an appellant finds himself in where, at the trial , he would have pleaded not guilty, tendered a defence outline, answered questions put to him by the prosecutor, called defence witnesses and otherwise participated fully in his trial save for declining to give evidence. However, we do not decide the appeal on this basis since the appeal was not argued on this premise.”