HARARE – Just as the specialist Labour Court did last year, the Supreme Court has now also dismissed fanciful claims by State media correspondent Geoffrey Nyarota that Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (ANZ), publishers of the Daily News, employed and then dismissed him unfairly in 2010.
The Supreme Court upheld an appeal by ANZ on Friday against an arbitral order that had been erroneously registered in Nyarota’s favour by a lower court last year.
This followed false claims by Nyarota that ANZ had dismissed him unlawfully in 2010, leading to Harare arbitrator John Mawire wrongly determining in August 2011 that he had a legitimate claim, and that he was, therefore, entitled to compensation of $90 921.
It was this fictitious claim that Nyarota tried to affirm in the High Court in July last year, notwithstanding the fact that the Labour Court had subsequently dismissed the claim with costs. Now, the Supreme Court has also repudiated the claim.
Nyarota had for the past few years made song and dance about this non-existent claim, particularly in State media which have been giving him ample space to launch sustained, but ultimately futile attacks against ANZ and the Daily News.
An ANZ spokesperson — who described Nyarota as a “troubled hack with an uncanny knack of getting himself into unnecessary difficulties” — said at the weekend that the company was happy that it had been fully vindicated by the courts “in this silly matter”.
“There was never a case here other than Mr Nyarota’s fertile imagination and fatal propensity for unnecessary fights, which ultimately only serve to disadvantage him.
“This is why ANZ never felt the need to respond to his many delusional rants against the company, its leading industry position and staff in some gullible sections of the media,” the spokesperson said.
The company also thanked its lawyers Mordecai Mahlangu — a partner with law firm Gill, Godlonton and Gerrans — and Advocate Thabani Mpofu, for having dealt with “Mr Nyarota’s often provocative tendencies with admirable patience and dignity” throughout the lengthy court processes.-DN