Buhle Nolwandle Mangena v Group Five Zim Ltd and The Disciplinary Authority (Mr Ngorima) N.O

The applicant, employed by the first respondent as a Junior Civil Engineer, was suspended from work on 17 August 2012 on allegations of misconduct towards her immediate supervisor, Aaron P. Chikodzi. The suspension letter was issued on the same date. The applicant claimed the suspension did not comply with Statutory Instrument 15/2006, particularly section 6(1) read with section 4. The applicant admitted in writing to uttering words contained in paragraphs 4 and 7 of Aaron's complaint report (including telling him to "go to hell and talk to Lucifer"), stating she lost her temper due to pressure and apologized for her reaction. She sought to justify her conduct based on alleged sexual harassment by her supervisor and claimed she had not been properly informed of the allegations against her. She applied for an interdict to prevent the disciplinary hearing and sought to be represented by a Labour Relations Practitioner.

• Whether the intended disciplinary enquiry by the first respondent was procedurally correct
• Whether the applicant was sufficiently informed of the allegations against her to satisfy the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem)
• Whether the applicant was entitled to prevent the disciplinary hearing from proceeding
• Whether the applicant was entitled to representation by a Labour Relations Practitioner at the disciplinary hearing

(1) The application is dismissed with costs. (2) First and second Respondents be and are hereby ordered to convene a disciplinary hearing within 30 days of this order.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) The principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings require that an employee know the nature of accusations, be given opportunity to state their case, and that the tribunal act in good faith; (2) Where an employee has been sufficiently informed of allegations (particularly through their own written admissions), they cannot refuse to attend a disciplinary hearing; (3) A disciplinary hearing is a necessary labour dispute forum which affected parties cannot avoid without lawful excuse; (4) Both employer and employee have a right to have their case heard at the disciplinary hearing; (5) Courts will not grant interdicts to prevent properly constituted disciplinary hearings from proceeding where natural justice requirements have been met; (6) An applicant seeking special procedural accommodations (such as legal representation beyond what is provided in applicable legislation) must demonstrate potential prejudice.

The court observed that if the applicant desired more information about the allegations, she could have easily obtained it through a simple request for further particulars without resorting to litigation. The court warned the applicant against abuse of court process in future, noting she was fortunate that the respondent did not seek costs on a higher scale. The court commented that while courts are open to all citizens seeking redress, they should not be abused in a brazen manner. The court also noted that the requirements of natural justice are flexible and depend on the circumstances of each case, citing Russell v Duke of Norfolk [1949] 1 ALLER 109. The court referenced the principle that employers who fail to adhere to principles of natural justice act unprocedurally and invite disapproval from courts.

This case clarifies the application of principles of natural justice in Zimbabwean employment disciplinary proceedings. It confirms that employees cannot use court processes to indefinitely postpone disciplinary hearings where they have been adequately informed of allegations against them, particularly where they have made partial admissions. The judgment reinforces that disciplinary hearings are essential forums in labour disputes and that both parties have a right to be heard. It also demonstrates that requests for procedural accommodations (such as legal representation) must be justified by evidence of potential prejudice, and employers are entitled to proceed according to the applicable statutory framework and regulations.