The applicant was employed by the respondent as an ambulance driver. On 3 November 2000, he was involved in a road traffic accident when his ambulance collided with a tractor. After the accident, a breathalyser test was conducted which allegedly showed he was not under the influence of alcohol. However, approximately five hours after the accident, blood samples were taken from him and submitted to a laboratory for testing. The laboratory results revealed an alcohol content of 260.0 mg/dl, significantly higher than the legal maximum of 80mg/dl for driving a motor vehicle. Based on these laboratory results, the respondent charged the applicant with misconduct for driving under the influence of alcohol. He was found guilty by a Disciplinary Committee and dismissed from employment. Internal appeals were dismissed. The applicant instituted the application on 18 May 2001, but it was only set down for argument more than fifteen years later in 2016.
The application was dismissed with costs.
The binding legal principles established are: (1) An allegation of bias in review proceedings must be supported by evidence establishing a 'real danger' or 'real possibility' of bias, meaning the tribunal member might unfairly regard with favour or disfavour the case of a party - mere assertions without factual foundation are insufficient; (2) Laboratory blood test analysis constitutes more cogent and conclusive evidence of blood alcohol content than breathalyser test results, and reliance on such evidence by a disciplinary committee is neither unreasonable nor irregular; (3) In review applications seeking reinstatement following dismissal, applicants must prosecute their cases expeditiously, as unreasonable delays (such as a fifteen-year delay in setting down a matter) may preclude relief even where merit exists, given that organizational structures change and positions cannot reasonably be held vacant; (4) Not every error or disagreement with a disciplinary committee's findings constitutes a reviewable ground - proper grounds of review must be established.
The court made non-binding observations that: (1) It is not reasonable to expect any company to wait for such an extended period (over fifteen years) to employ a person to fill a vacant position; (2) Relief sought by employees challenging dismissal is likely to be affected by changes in the organizational structures of companies over time; (3) The suggestion that someone else's blood could have been substituted and sent to an independent government laboratory is 'fanciful' in the absence of supporting evidence; (4) The Government Analyst Laboratory, being independent and not under the control of the employer, provides credible and reliable evidence in disciplinary proceedings.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean labour and administrative law for several reasons: (1) It clarifies the test for bias in disciplinary proceedings, requiring a 'real danger' or 'real possibility' of bias to be established with evidence, not mere assertions; (2) It confirms that laboratory blood test results constitute more cogent and conclusive evidence of alcohol content than breathalyser tests in disciplinary proceedings; (3) It emphasizes the importance of prosecuting employment review applications expeditiously, particularly where reinstatement is sought, as unreasonable delays may defeat relief even where merit exists; (4) It distinguishes between proper grounds of review and mere disagreements with factual or evidential findings of disciplinary committees; and (5) It demonstrates judicial reluctance to interfere with disciplinary decisions where proper procedures were followed and credible evidence supported the findings.