By Tendai Kamhungira
Netone Cellular (Private) Limited (NetOne) has filed a $100 000 lawsuit against its former employee who failed to return money she reportedly expropriated from the mobile network operator.
According to court papers, the former employee, Cynthia Mapeza was employed by the organisation as a supervisor and was based in Gweru.
“The defendant (Mapeza) was at all material times an employee of the plaintiff (NetOne) stationed at plaintiff’s Gweru retail shop as a supervisor. Among other things, (she was) the custodian of all stocks meant for the shop, carry out stock and bank reconciliations for the shop, ensure that the stocks are accounted for and more importantly to protect the employer’s business by ensuring that there is no stock pilferage, theft or fraud,” the court was told.
According to court papers, Mapeza had a duty to take care of the mobile network provider’s property.
“On or about the year 2018, the plaintiff carried out an investigation which unearthed the banking and stock variances amounting to $103 700, 50.
“The banking variances as at August 29, 2018, amounted to $91 551, while the stock variances amounted to $12 149, 50, giving a total of $103 700, 50,” NetOne said.
The company claimed that at all material times, Mapeza had concealed or neglected to report the variances or explain the variances.
“The plaintiff has not been able to recover the stock or the amount equivalent to the stock. Despite that the defendant has the responsibility to ensure that the plaintiff’s stock is kept safely, the defendant, has: neglected to keep the plaintiff’s property safely or fraudulently deprived the employer of its property, or stole the employer’s property, or breached the duty of care bestowed on her by the applicant,” the court heard.
According to court papers, Mapeza admitted being responsible for the bank and stock variances, but has failed to pay back the amount despite demands from the mobile company.
The company is now demanding payment of the money together with interest at the prescribed rate from the date of summons to the date of payment in full.
Mapeza has not yet responded to the application, but has 10 working days within which to file an appearance to defend.
“If you do not enter appearance to defend, the plaintiff’s claim will be heard and dealt with by the High Court without further notice to you,” part of the summons reads. DailyNews