LABOUR Court judge Justice Lilian Kudya has reserved judgment in a case where Educators Union of Zimbabwe (EUZ) secretary-general Tapedza Zhou is appealing against a ruling that found him guilty of not invigilating a public examination.
Zhou was convicted on November 29 last year of refusing to invigilate the Zimbabwe Schools Examination Council (Zimsec) papers between December 2, 2021, and January 20, 2022, after attending a Primary and Secondary Education ministry hearing.
On November 29, 2021, Zhou obstructed 16 teachers at Highfield High 1 School from discharging their duties when he mobilised them not to invigilate Zimsec examinations.
He was also found guilty of being absent at work for 22 days, fined $45 000, and transferred to Simbarendenga Satellite Secondary School in Highglen District from Highfield High 1 School.
Zhou appealed against the determination on January 9, citing Primary and Secondary Education minister Torerayi Moyo as the respondent.
His lawyer, Tafara Goro, said his client is challenging the obligation placed on teachers to invigilate Zimsec examinations.
“We argued the matter before Justice (Lilian) Kudya, and after hearing oral arguments, judgment was reserved. We are challenging the obligation placed on teachers to invigilate Zimsec exams just by virtue of them being teachers.
“Unless they have been properly appointed and approved by Zimsec in terms of its Examinations Procedure Manual,” said Goro.
- Zimsec, teachers clash over Cala allowances
- Letters:Only an engineer can save Zimbabwe from her problems
- Furore over ‘exorbitant’ Cala charges
- Zimsec ‘O’ Level paper leaks
Keep Reading
In his grounds of appeal, Zhou said: “The respondent grossly misdirected itself by concluding that the appellant was guilty of allegation number two when, in fact, the appellant had no contract with Zimsec and was not duty-bound to invigilate the examinations.
“The respondent grossly misdirected itself by meeting out a harsh penalty in the circumstances of the case. Punishment must be educational and corrective, not punitive. Wherefore, the appellant prays that the appeal succeeds with costs and that the determination made on November 29, 2022, be set aside and substituted with the employee's being found not guilty of the allegation.”
The respondent argued that the defence’s argument was unreasonable and a complete misguidance.
“The disciplinary authority (DA) correctly found the appellant guilty of the allegation of absence from duty without good cause on his own admission. During the hearing, the appellant admitted that he was absent from duty for the alleged days,” said the ministry in its heads of argument.
“In conclusion, it is submitted that the appellant has not been able to show how the findings of the disciplinary committee were grossly unreasonable in the sense that no reasonable tribunal applying its mind to the same facts would have arrived at such a conclusion given the evidence and admissions before it.”
The ministry, which is represented by the Civil Division of the Attorney General’s office, said the finding made by the DA is consistent with the provisions of the Public Service Regulations, 2000, as amended.
