In employment relations, conducting a thorough investigation before initiating disciplinary action is a fundamental principle of fair labour practices. Investigations serve as a critical step in ensuring that allegations against an employee are substantiated with factual evidence, thereby safeguarding both the employer's interests and the employee's right to a fair process. Failure to conduct a proper investigation can lead to wrongful termination claims, reputational risks and legal consequences. This principle was recently emphasised by the Court of Appeal of Tanzania in the case of Tanzania Breweries Limited v. Gibson Nevava [2025] TZCA 176, where the court ruled on the necessity of conducting investigations before disciplinary hearings.

In this case, the respondent, Gibson Nevava was employed by the appellant as a route salesman driver and was later promoted into the position of a warehouse supervisor. He was later terminated for alleged dishonesty and gross negligence, having been found guilty by the disciplinary committee. The respondent was aggrieved by the decision of the disciplinary committee and lodged a complaint before the commission for mediation and arbitration (CMA), claiming unfair termination.

The CMA noted that the respondent was placed before the disciplinary committee before the appellant had conducted an investigation to establish its allegations against the respondent, which was contrary to Rule 13(1) of the Employment and Labour Relations (Code of Good Practice) Rules, GN No. 42 of 2007.The CMA consequently ruled in favour of the respondent. The appellant challenged the decision of the CMA before the High Court but was unsuccessful, leading to a further appeal in which the court finally ruled the matter in favour of the respondent.

In its decision, the court noted that the evidence on record did not indicate that the respondent was present on the day when the alleged misconduct occurred. Moreover, the court observed that it was not clear who prepared the report that formed the basis of the misconduct allegations. The court further analysed the evidence and noted that the appellant did not present any direct evidence linking the respondent with the alleged misconduct, yet the disciplinary committee relied on the same report, whose origin and authorship was uncertain, casting doubts on its credibility. Based on these reasons, the court concluded that the appellant had failed to substantiate its claims against the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that the law places the burden of proof on the employer to demonstrate valid and fair reasons for termination. The court held that, since the allegations against the respondent were unproven, the termination by the appellant was deemed unfair and unjustified.

Notably, in its decision, the CMA ordered the reinstatement of the respondent. However, the court cautioned that reinstatement is not always the remedy for unfair termination. A lot more needs to be considered, including possible tension in the employer/employee relationship. The court held that payment of compensation is a viable remedy in situations where the relationship between the employee and employer has been affected, as in this case where the employee was terminated for, amongst other reasons, dishonesty, lack of trust and gross negligence.

The court noted that, given the circumstances of the case, the appellant was no longer willing to work with the respondent and, in such circumstances, an order for compensation of the respondent would be more tenable in the interest of justice for both parties. On this basis, the court set aside the order by the CMA for reinstatement of the respondent and ordered compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

Concluding remarks

Employers are reminded of the importance of conducting thorough investigations before initiating any disciplinary action that may lead to termination of an employee. Proper investigations should be conducted to establish the facts of the matter before subjecting an employee to a disciplinary hearing. More importantly, a disciplinary hearing must be conducted in compliance with legal and procedural requirements. By adhering to these principles, employers will ensure fairness and mitigate risks arising from claims of unfair termination or procedural shortcomings.