Significance
Findings of fact by a trial court,
The burden of proof in civil matters.
Facts
The Appellant (Zulu) was employed by the Respondent as
an assistant accountant. By a letter, the respondent terminated the appellant’s employment. The letter contends that the appellant had prepared an invoice he
had no authority to; He signed an order on behalf of Zambezi Enterprise and
caused the respondent purchase control stamp to be appended to the said invoice
without the contract manager's authority. The letter further stated that the
appellant had approved the said invoice and presented it to collect a cheque.
the cheque in question did not purchase the fictitious goods on the invoice from
Zambezi Enterprise. The letter stated that the respondent did not see the need
to order paint from the company above as the painting was subcontracted. The
letter also stated that the appellant had prepared another invoice to the same
company for the electrification of a property to be purchased by him. They also
prepared a cheque which was stopped by the project manager. The respondent
concluded that they cannot keep the appellant in such a position of trust thus
terminating his employment with payment of one month extra instead of notice,
on the condition that he pays back the cheque he managed to obtain from the
respondents from the first invoice.
The appellant in the lower court contended that the allegations
were without foundation and unjustified, as the invoices referred to in the
letter were neither irregular nor dishonest as they were duly approved. Thus,
the appellant contended that the termination was unlawful and without justification.
The lower court dismissed the appellants' contentions
and accepted the respondent’s contention. Thus, the appellant appealed that the
respondent had in fact not adduced any evidence to support the allegations in
their letter,
The issue
Whether an appellate court can reverse the findings of
fact by the trial court.
Whether the burden of proof laid on the respondents
who were the defendants in the lower court
Held
The court held that before an appellate court can
reverse findings of fact made by a trial judge, it
would have to be satisfied that the findings in question were either perverse
or made in the absence of any relevant evidence, in Casu the appellant
presented no evidence in support of his contention’s, the respondent did in fact
adduce evidence to their contentions in the letter and did they were
deficiencies and
it appeared the
appellant took the view that the burden of proof lay on the respondent. This
did not as the plaintiff who alleged that he had been wrongfully or unfairly dismissed
must prove his case that he cannot be entitled to judgment as the defendant in
such a case needs no defence.