A FORMER Irvines Zimbabwe school headmistress, Emerentiana Makumbe, has taken the chicken firm to the High Court seeking $30 000 compensation after she was allegedly forced out of her job over unproved allegations.
BY CHARLES LAITON
The company owns Ardno Primary School.
According to court papers, Makumbe had allegedly a long-standing dispute with Irvines authorities who accused her of being hostile to parents and resisting new ideas. She was also accused of engaging in financial maladministration, gross negligence of duties including corruption, disregard of authority, and producing poor results for the school.
However, Makumbe said the allegations were later investigated by her employer, the Public Service Commission, and were found to be baseless. She further said the findings by her employer only vindicated her as she was found to be working as expected by her employers.
“The plaintiff worked at the school for 16 years until she was humiliated and unfairly treated by representatives of the defendant (Irvines) which led to negative and adverse effects to her career at large and her personal self,” Makumbe’s lawyers Musunga & Associates, said.
“Being the headmistress of the said school, she was shocked when the defendant literally physically blocked her from carrying out her duties without justifiable reason.”
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
Makumbe is now claiming $15 000 being damages for unlawful displacement, $5 000 being damages for constructive and forceful transfer from Ardno Primary School and $10 000 being damages for the pain and shock caused by the incident.
In their response to the claim, Irvines’ lawyers urged the court to dismiss the application adding it was “an abuse of the court process”.
“It is denied that the defendant (Irvines) is guilty of any unlawful or wrong conduct arising out of its interaction with the plaintiff . . . it is averred that the plaintiff is not entitled to damages as sought or at all, and that the claim should be dismissed with costs on the high scale,” the lawyers said.
The matter is yet to be referred to trial.
