INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF MALAWI
NO. IRC 32 OF 2005
FIRST MERCHANT BANK LTD
- CORAM: R. Zibelu
Banda (Ms); Chairperson
Senior Human Resources Officer
Namponya (Ms); Official
Reason-Loss of trust and confidence
contract-Implied term-Mutual trust and confidence
Procedure- Right to be
Court must guard
against rigid imposition of judicial style proceedings in
hearing the applicant and the respondent the court finds that the
applicant was employed as Bank Clerk. At time of employment
required to declare his assets because of the nature of the job he
was engaged to perform. In less than four years he had
real properties, a motor vehicle, cellphones and was traveling on
private trips by Air. This aroused some suspicions
in the respondent.
The applicant was earning K12 133-00 at the time of termination with
no other known or verifiable means of extra
income. The court finds
that the suspicion was founded and it formed ground for enquiry
leading to disciplinary action.
applicant was invited to a meeting where he was asked to explain his
new found wealth. He explained by giving names of people
supported him financially. The respondent contacted one such person,
who contradicted the applicants assertions on sources
of his extra
income. The respondent basing on this and the applicants responses
were satisfied that the applicant was dishonest.
The applicant was
not caught red-handed stealing but the respondent had lost trust and
confidence in him due to his unexplained
amassing of wealth.
has held that mutual trust and confidence is an implied term of any
employment contract. Without it, one cannot be expected
with an employment relationship. See: Manda V Malawi
Entrepreneurs Development Institute (MEDI) [Matter Number IRC
finds that this was a valid reason for taking disciplinary action.
Before the termination the applicant was put on notice.
his side of the story. The applicant alleged that hearing was flawed.
The court finds that the respondent satisfied
the requirements under
the circumstances of this case. The applicant failed to show his
source of extra income when asked to.
V Unitrans (Mw) Ltd [Matter Number IRC 27/2001 (unreported)]
this court held that; a court must guard against the rigid imposition
of judicial style
proceedings in inappropriate situations. The court
therefore finds that the procedure adopted under the circumstances of
The respondent complied
with the requirements for fair dismissal: Section 57 (1) and (2) of
the Employment Act. This action is therefore
- Any party aggrieved by
this decision has the right of appeal to the High Court within 30
days of this decision. Appeal lies only
on matters of law and
jurisdiction and not facts: Section 65 (2) of the Labour Relations
this 30th day of January 2007 at BLANTYRE.