Fired Mutare Magistrate appeals to Labour Court

By Tatenda Mabasa | Nehanda Mutare Bureau |

MUTARE – Lawyers representing controversial Mutare provincial magistrate Charles Murove who was dismissed from the bench on misconduct charges on Monday lodged an appeal with the Labour Court, setting the stage for a bruising labour wrangle with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

His lawyer Mr Chris Ndlovu told Nehanda Radio that he had appealed against the verdict passed by the disciplinary committee that presided over Murove’s case arguing that the committee erred in ignoring critical mitigatory factors that Murove was a first offender as well as a senior judicial officer.

“The complaint against the appellant had been raised or brought up by the judge of the High Court. It was highly unlikely and, in fact, improbable that they would in all fairness arrive at a decision apposite the Honourable judge’s findings or conclusions.

“The disciplinary committee further erred and misdirected itself when it relied on and/or made reference to the review minute or judgment by Justice (Tendai) Uchena. A judgment of court is only but an expression of that court’s opinion on matters before it. It is not conclusive or fact.

“The conviction of the appellant clearly erodes and takes away the time-honoured judicial discretion that should be at the heart and centre of any judicial officer. The conviction is likely to instill fear and curtail judicial independence. If the appellant erred, the legal system has its in-built mechanisms for checks and balances,” reads part of the appeal letter.

Murove was sacked on charges that his work was below minimum standards and that he had failed to apply his mind fully in assessing appropriate sentences. He was also accused of acting improperly, negligently, inefficiently and incompetently in passing out sentences.

Charges against Murove arose after a review of seven cases which he had handled where it was concluded that the nature of sentences passed did not meet justice. On August 21, 2013 JSC secretary, Justice Kudya wrote to Mr Murove, advising him that he was unfit for the bench.

Nehanda Radio has a copy of the letter which reads:

“Please be advised that the Disciplinary Authority, after a careful consideration of evidence and all documents pertaining to your misconduct charges has determined in terms of Section 46(1) (b) of the Public Service Regulations, 200, as read with Section 28 (60 of the Judicial Service Act (Chapter 7:18), that you be found guilty of misconduct as charged.

“Accordingly, it has been ruled that, in terms of Section 50 (1) (a) of the Public Service Regulations, 2000, as read with Section 28(6) of the Judicial Service Act (Chapter 7:18), that you will be discharged from Judicial Service Commission with immediate effect. In terms of Section 51 (1) of the aforesaid regulations, you may within 21 days from the date on which the Disciplinary Authority informs you of the determination or penalty, either appeal against the determination or penalty to the Labour Court or request the Commission in writing through this office to review the determination or penalty the Disciplinary Authority has imposed. You will be paid cash in lieu of accrued vacation leave days, if any in terms of Section 36 911) of the Public Service Regulations, 2000 as read with Section 28 (6) of the Judicial Services Act (Chapter 7:18).

The commission cited four reasons for the dismissal.

“The reasons for your discharge from JSC are firstly that even though you were an experienced and seasoned provincial magistrate, the standard of work you exhibited in these seven cases was even far below the minimum standards expected of one in the grade of magistrate.

“Secondly, you failed to apply your mind in assessing the appropriate sentence and deliberately imposed uniform and inadequate sentences of three months imprisonment without taking into account the different mitigatory and aggravating matrixes of each case. You were clearly motivated by the desire to circumvent both scrutiny and review mechanisms.

“(Thirdly) you acted improperly, negligently, inefficiently and incompetently in passing the sentences in all the seven cases referred to in contravention of paragraph 2 of the first schedule 9Section 2) of the Public Service Regulations , 2000 as read with Section 28 (6) of the Judicial Service Act (Chapter 7:18). In essence you demonstrated gross incompetency incapable of correction through training and incompatible with the public interest that essentially leads to the erosion of public confidence with the Judicial Service Commission,” reads the letter.