STATE-OWNED telecommunications firm NetOne Cellular (Pvt) Ltd has approached the High Court seeking an order to compel one of its former employees, Cynthia Mapeza, to pay over $103 700 after she allegedly misappropriated the parastatal’s funds while employed as a supervisor at the Gweru branch.
BY CHARLES LAITON
Through its lawyers Matsikidze and Mucheche Legal Practitioners, the mobile network filed summons against Mapeza on Friday last week. Mapeza is yet to enter an appearance to defend.
She allegedly concealed or neglected to report the variances or explain the stock and banking variances to her employer, leading to investigations that unearthed the misappropriation of the cash.
“The defendant (Mapeza) was at all material times an employee of the plaintiff (NetOne) stationed at plaintiff’s Gweru retail shop as a supervisor. Among other things, (she was) the custodian of all stocks meant for the shop, carry out stock and bank reconciliations for the shop, ensure that the stocks are accounted for and more importantly to protect the employer’s business by ensuring that there is no stock pilferage, theft or fraud,” NetOne said in its declaration.
“On or about the year 2018, the plaintiff carried out an investigation, which unearthed the banking and stock variances amounting to $103 700,50. The banking variances as at August 29, 2018, amounted to $91 551, while the stock variances amounted to $12 149,50, giving a total of $103 700,50.”
Mapeza had the responsibility to ensure that the company’s stock was kept safely at the time and that she also admitted being responsible for the bank and stock variances.
“The plaintiff has not been able to recover the stock or the amount equivalent to the stock. Despite that, the defendant has the responsibility to ensure that the plaintiff’s stock is kept safely, the defendant, has: neglected to keep the plaintiff’s property safely or fraudulently deprived the employer of its property, or stole the employer’s property, or breached the duty of care bestowed on her by the applicant,” the firm said.
“However, despite that admission and demand, the defendant has failed or neglected to pay the amount being claimed herein.”