Rusape’s Latest Legal Attempt Ends In Failure

Scapegoating rather than Accountability the Judge notes…

By Shingirai Vambe

Rusape Town Council’s long-running bid to punish suspended town engineer Charles Chindenga has suffered another crushing blow after the Labour Court dismissed its appeal in its entirety, laying bare what the court record reveals as administrative rot, abuse of disciplinary processes and chronic governance failures within the local authority.

In a judgment handed down by Justice Gonesi, the Labour Court ruled that the council’s appeal against its own Disciplinary Authority decision was devoid of merit and dismissed it with costs, effectively restoring Chindenga to his post with full benefits and further embarrassing a council already dogged by allegations of mismanagement and internal dysfunction.

The ruling marks yet another failed attempt by Rusape Town Council to justify the suspension and prosecution of its senior technical officer, a process the court found to be legally flawed, evidentially weak and procedurally misguided.

Chindenga was suspended in May 2025 without salary or benefits on allegations of gross incompetence and inefficiency relating to drainage failures at Mabvazuva and BC Housing Scheme. Although the suspension was briefly lifted, council immediately re-suspended him and convened a disciplinary hearing.

However, in September 2025, the Disciplinary Authority acquitted Chindenga on all charges, finding that council had failed to prove wrongdoing and ordering his reinstatement without loss of benefits.

Instead of implementing the ruling, council escalated the matter to the Labour Court, a move the judge later characterised as legally unsound.

Central to council’s appeal was the argument that the Disciplinary Authority erred by ordering reinstatement without providing an alternative of damages in lieu of reinstatement.

Justice Gonesi firmly rejected this position, clarifying that Chindenga had never been dismissed but merely suspended.

“The restoration of an employee after suspension is not equivalent to reinstatement following dismissal,” the court ruled, citing binding Supreme Court authorities. As such, there was no legal basis for damages, and council’s argument collapsed at the first hurdle.

More damning was the court’s finding that Rusape Town Council improperly attempted to shift the burden of proof onto Chindenga.

Council accused the engineer of failing to requisition resources for drainage repairs, yet failed to produce evidence from its own procurement and finance departments — the very offices that retain such records.

The court noted that Chindenga had repeatedly alerted council to sewer failures and made requisitions, but had no access to the documents because they were controlled by council itself.

In a sharply worded passage, the court endorsed Chindenga’s submission that it was “grossly improper” for council to demand proof of documents it already had in its custody.

Justice Gonesi also dismissed council’s claims of incompetence, noting that witnesses called by council were not professionally qualified to assess the performance of a town engineer.

The court held that councillors and administrative officials lacked the technical competence to judge engineering standards, especially in the absence of evidence that funds were ever availed for the work council complained about.

Without proof of funding, the judge ruled, blaming the engineer amounted to scapegoating rather than accountability.

Council further embarrassed itself by attacking the Disciplinary Authority for allowing only seven days to note an appeal instead of the prescribed 21 days — despite having successfully filed its appeal and failing to demonstrate any prejudice.

The court dismissed this argument as a procedural smokescreen and warned against the abuse of technicalities in labour matters.

While the judgment focused on labour law, it inadvertently exposed a wider governance crisis within Rusape Town Council, disciplinary processes weaponised against professionals, chronic failure to fund essential infrastructure, poor record-keeping and internal accountability breakdowns, and a culture of deflecting institutional failure onto individuals.

The court’s findings suggest that instead of addressing systemic failures, council sought to manufacture culpability, a tactic that has now backfired spectacularly.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, ratepayers will once again foot the bill for council’s legal misadventures.

This publication noted residents’ view, that, he case has become a textbook example of how poor governance, political interference and administrative incompetence is crippling service delivery while exposing councils to costly litigation.

Rusape residents continue to endure failing infrastructure, and the Labour Court’s ruling raises uncomfortable questions, who is truly responsible for the town’s service delivery collapse, and how many more court defeats will it take before accountability shifts from scapegoats to the system itself?

About The Author