Charles Kakurira v National Railways of Zimbabwe

The applicant was employed by the respondent (National Railways of Zimbabwe) as a station clerk based in Banket. He admitted to giving three steel sleepers belonging to NRZ to a lorry driver without authority from his employer. The applicant knew that the lorry driver had previously approached a colleague (Chenjerai) requesting scrap metal and had been told there was no NRZ property available for disposal. The applicant was aware of the proper procedure for disposal of NRZ property, which required all property to be sent to Bulawayo for reclamation, as this was part of his job duties. Despite this knowledge, he gave the steel sleepers to the lorry driver and the property was loaded onto the lorry in his presence. The property was only recovered when the station master observed what was happening and ordered it to be off-loaded. When questioned by the station master, the applicant apologized and claimed he thought the sleepers were of no value to NRZ. A disciplinary hearing committee found him guilty of stealing the respondent's property and he was dismissed. The General Manager upheld this decision on appeal. The Labour Court dismissed his subsequent appeal, and the Senior President of the Labour Court refused leave to appeal.

• Whether the applicant's conduct constituted theft of employer property warranting dismissal
• Whether the Labour Court erred in dismissing the appeal from the General Manager's decision
• Whether there were grounds to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court

The application for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Labour Court (LC/H/06/2008) was dismissed with costs.

Where an employee admits to giving away employer property to a third party without authorization, knowing that proper disposal procedures existed and that such procedures were not followed, the necessary intention to permanently deprive the employer of property (theft) is established. The employee's subjective belief that the property was of no value to the employer does not negate the intention to steal where the employee knew: (1) it was not within their authority to determine the value or utility of the property; (2) proper disposal procedures existed; and (3) those procedures were being circumvented. The fact that property is recovered before the theft is completed does not absolve the employee of liability for the misconduct where the intention to steal has been established.

The court observed that disposal procedures for company property are specifically designed to protect against the very type of theft committed by the applicant. This suggests that courts will take a strict approach to breaches of such protective procedures. The court also noted that when facts are admitted and common cause, decision-making bodies have "no choice" but to return a guilty verdict, emphasizing the limited discretion available where admissions establish all material elements of misconduct.

This case clarifies the principles applicable to theft of employer property in the employment context under Zimbabwean law. It demonstrates that: (1) an employee's subjective belief about the value of property to the employer is irrelevant where established disposal procedures exist; (2) intention to steal can be established even where the theft is ultimately unsuccessful due to intervention; (3) courts will uphold dismissals for theft where the employee had clear knowledge of proper procedures but deliberately circumvented them; and (4) admissions by an employee establishing the material facts will leave tribunals with no choice but to find the misconduct proven. The judgment reinforces the protection of employer property rights and the importance of following established procedures for disposal of company assets.