Mr Chizu has declined to return the vehicle, arguing that a
dispute on whether his contract was lawfully terminated or not was still
pending before the same court.
He argued that the High Court ought to first rule on his
initial application challenging termination of his contract on notice, saying
it was invalid given that he was never heard in terms of the Constitution. Mr
Chizu submitted that the Labour Act, which provides termination of contract on
notice, was unconstitutional.
In her papers in the latest suit, PRAZ chairperson Mrs
Vimbai Nyemba said Mr Chizu continues to hold on to the vehicle despite no
longer being an employee of the institution.
“This is an application for an order compelling Mr Chizu to
return and restore possession to PRAZ of certain movable property owned by it,”
she said in the papers.
“Despite demand, Mr Chizu has failed, neglected and/or
refused to return possession of the property. The property consists of a
Mercedes Benz ML registration number AEX 0509.”
Mrs Nyemba said Mr
Chizu had only surrendered other properties in the form of other vehicles and
electrical gadgets.
“I am advised, which advise I believe to be true and
correct, that an owner of property cannot be deprived of its property without
its consent,” said Mrs Nyemba.
“I am further advised that where such unlawful deprivation
takes place, an owner of property is entitled to recover it from anyone in its
possession. Such owner, I am advised is merely required to allege that it is
the owner of the property and the property was in the possession of the
respondent at the time of commencement of the action or application.
“If there was any lawful possession at some earlier date by
Mr Chizu, the contract giving rise to such possession has come to an end.” In
response, Mr Chizu opposed the application, saying the Labour Act allowing
arbitrary termination of contracts was unconstitutional given that it did not
afford an affected part the right to be heard.
“It further goes without saying that I had an interest in
my employment as it was my source of livelihood and the interest cannot be
described as academic by any stretch of imagination,” he said. “I had a
perfectly legitimate expectation to be treated fairly in terms of the
Constitution of the land and at least to be heard before my contract of
employment was arbitrarily terminated.
“No reasons were given for the termination. Such conduct
cannot be constitutional. In any event, even if reasons had been given, that
would not cure the anomaly of arbitrary termination which fell foul of the
Constitution.”
Mr Chizu left PRAZ sometime in January this year after a
unanimous board decision. Herald
0 comments:
Post a Comment