Zimpapers Logo

retrenchment packages in excess of US$1 million to five former executive managers of the oil firm the minister accuses of misappropriating US$13 million.
The five – Netsai Masiyanise, Isaac Mhaka, Tendai Mangezi, Clever Maodzwa and Krispen Mashange – were retrenched three months ago together with 101 workers as part of restructuring the company.

The other 101 have since received their packages and Minister Mangoma refused to pay the five on the basis that they were part of the directorate and were supposed to explain the disappearance of US$13 million from the firm’s coffers before claiming their packages. On the other hand, Noczim board has since agreed to the payment of the five.

The five stated in some of the documents that they strongly believed the minister had a bone to chew with them to an extent that he took it upon himself to oppose the matter without any legal representation.
Minister Mangoma described the concession by the board as “treacherous” adding that the five should first account for the missing funds.

He said this in his opposition to the arbitration award.
The minister’s response was received well after Arbitrator Mr L Gabilo had awarded the five packages ranging from US$176 000 to US$239 000 each and some vehicles and laptops.

Minister Mangoma had filed the response to the Ministry of Labour instead of the sending it to the arbitrator.
He is now seeking rescission of the award on the basis that his response was not considered when the matter was determined.

Noczim, which is listed as the first respondent in the labour dispute, chose not to respond as the board of directors had consented to the payment of the packages.
“The National Oil Company is cited as the first respondent. Please be advised that the only respondent is the second respondent, the Minister of Energy and Power Development.

“The National Oil Company of Zimbabwe will be guided by the outcome of the conciliation,” the board chair-man wrote to the lawyers of the five.
The same letter was copied to the Ministry of Labour.

Minister Mangoma blasted the board saying its concession was suspicious and bent on prejudicing the Government – the company’s shareholder.

“The board did not take into account that the five directors had to account for missing funds which they failed to account for. Thus the Noczim board made a treacherous concession to the prejudice of the shareholder in a matter the board is suspected to be an accomplice. The board failed to seek the shareholder’s view which should be done in special general meetings. The shareholder has every right to protect its interests, more strongly where a company is winding up,” said Minister Mangoma.

The application for rescission of the judgment was filed when the five had already filed a chamber application for registration of the arbitration award at the High Court.
The five, in replication to the rescission application, accused the minister of involving himself in issues that did not concern him.

They argue that if the late response was considered, it would not even change the arbitration outcome because it lacked merit.
“It is submitted by the claimants that it appears the minister has a propensity of doing other people’s responsibilities. The minister cannot purport to act on behalf of Noczim.

“Noczim is a private limited company and if it is winding up, the relevant persons should represent it and not the minister.
“It is unheard of. However claimants are not worried as in December 2010, the minister alone without a board, appointed Kenneth Chakanetsa as the chief executive of National Oil Infrastructure Company and Mr (Griefshaw) Revanevako as chief executive for PetroTrade,” read the papers.

At law, the five submit, the minister cannot represent himself in legal battles.
Considering that Minister Mangoma was sued in official capacity, the five contend that he was supposed to be represented by his legal advisor, permanent secretary, the Attorney General’s Office or external lawyers.

They accused the minister of usurping the powers of the court, police and the prosecution by “convicting” all the five managers without any criminal or civil hearing.
“With regards to alleged fraud or gross mismanagement claimants were never officially asked to explain.

“If they were to be asked that should have been done by the board.
“What the minister has already done is to abuse his office and to usurp the role of the Commissioner General of Police, Attorney General’s Office and the whole judiciary system,” it is argued.