Auwen Mukwala v Blantyre Sports Club (IRC MATTER 32 of 2025) [2026] MWIRC 14 (27 April 2026)

Page 1Auweni Mukwala v Blantyre Sports Club, IRC Matter No. 32 of 2025 REPUBLIC OF MALAWI IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF MALAWI PRINCIPAL REGISTRY IRC MATTER NUMBER 32 OF 2025 BETWEEN: AUWEN MUKWALA……….…….…...….……….……...………………………………...APPLICANT AND BLANTYRE SPORTS CLUB……………….…………………………………..………….RESPONDENT

Coram

WYSON CHAMDIMBA NKHATA (DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON) Mr. Mickeus- of Counsel for the Applicant Mr. Chilundu- of Counsel for the Applicant Mr. Mwangonde- of Counsel for the Applicant Mr. Kalulu- of Counsel for the Respondent Mr. Chirwa- of Counsel for the Respondent Mr. Zakaria- Court Clerk and Official Interpreter

Introduction

This matter arises from the termination of the Applicant’s employment as General Manager of Blantyre Sports Club. The Applicant, Mr. Auwen Mukwala, commenced these proceedings against Blantyre Sports Club alleging that the termination of his employment was unlawful and unfair. In his pleadings, the Applicant contends that the Respondent acted in breach of statutory labour protections and the terms of the employment relationship between the parties. He further alleges that the disciplinary process that culminated in his summary dismissal was flawed, that the findings against him were not justified, and that the Respondent’s conduct amounted to unfair labour practices. At all material times, the Applicant was employed by the Respondent in a senior managerial capacity as General Manager. The Respondent is a members’ sports club operating in Blantyre and was the Applicant’s employer. The employment relationship between the parties appears to have deteriorated in the course of 2024, culminating in the Applicant’s suspension on 9 th July 2024 pending investigations into allegations concerning his conduct and performance. Subsequently, by a letter dated 25th September 2024, the Applicant was notified to attend a disciplinary hearing scheduled for 3 rd October 2024, at which he was required to answer to charges of gross insubordination and gross negligence or dereliction of duty. Following that process, he was summarily dismissed by letter dated 12th December 2024. The Applicant challenges both the substance and the procedure of that dismissal. In relation to the allegation of insubordination, he maintains that he did not refuse to comply with any lawful instruction or act in a

Page 2Auweni Mukwala v Blantyre Sports Club, IRC Matter No. 32 of 2025 disrespectful manner towards the Board Chair, but merely sought clarification regarding the terms of a contract presented to him. As regards the allegations of negligence, the Applicant contends that procurement processes and project decisions were undertaken within the structures of the Respondent and with the involvement of the Board, and that he acted in accordance with instructions given to him. He further disputes that his conduct occasioned the losses or deficiencies alleged by the Respondent. On that basis, he asserts that the decision to dismiss him was not supported by valid and fair reasons. The Respondent disputes the claim. It accepts that the Applicant was its employee and that his employment was terminated, but maintains that the dismissal was justified and lawful. The Respondent relies on the disciplinary proceedings and the findings of the disciplinary committee, which concluded that the Applicant was guilty of gross insubordination and gross negligence. It contends that the Applicant acted in a manner that undermined the authority of the Board and failed to adhere to established procurement and management procedures, thereby exposing the Club to financial loss and risk. The Respondent further maintains that the Applicant was accorded a fair hearing, was notified of the charges in advance, and was given an opportunity to respond, and that the requirements of procedural fairness were met. The issues that arise for determination are whether the dismissal of the Applicant was substantively justified, whether the disciplinary process complied with the requirements of procedural fairness under the applicable law, and whether the Applicant is entitled to the reliefs he seeks. These issues fall to be determined on the basis of the evidence placed before the Court, including the documentary exhibits and the record of the disciplinary proceedings, together with the relevant provisions of the law. Before addressing these issues in detail, the Court sets out the evidence presented by the parties.

The Evidence

The Applicant’s Testimony The Applicant testified as the sole witness in support of his case. He adopted his written witness statement as his evidence in chief and testified in accordance with its contents. He stated that he was employed by the Respondent on 24 th December 2019 as General Manager. In support of this, he tendered his employment contract marked as Exhibit AM1. He testified that under the contract he was initially employed on probation and thereafter continued under a fixed-term employment contract. He stated that at the time material to the dispute he was earning a monthly basic salary of MK2,020,268.25. He further testified that, in addition to his salary, he was entitled to other benefits, including housing allowance, use of an official motor vehicle, fuel allocation, medical aid under the MASM VIP scheme, cellphone allowance, Blantyre Sports Club gold family membership, and school fees for two of his biological children up to A-level or high school. He testified that on 4th July 2024 the Respondent held an Extraordinary General Meeting. He stated that one of the matters discussed at that meeting was his employment status with the Respondent. According to him, during the meeting, the Board Chairperson directed him to leave the meeting so that the issue of his employment could be discussed freely in his absence. He stated that after he left the meeting, he later understood from the minutes and from what followed that a resolution had been made for his removal. In support of this part of his case, he tendered what he described as minutes of the Extraordinary General Meeting, marked as Exhibit AM2. He testified that the decision to terminate his employment was made without hearing him and without giving him any valid reason. He stated that after the meeting, he was orally directed to surrender the Respondent’s property in his custody, including the official laptop and official motor vehicle, and was told not to return to the Respondent’s premises. He tendered handover notes marked as Exhibit AM3. He stated that after he questioned the manner in which his employment had been terminated, the Respondent issued him with a Page 3Auweni Mukwala v Blantyre Sports Club, IRC Matter No. 32 of 2025 suspension letter dated 9th July 2024. He tendered the suspension letter as Exhibit AM4. His evidence was that the suspension was not a genuine preliminary step, but was intended to formalise a dismissal which had already been decided at the Extraordinary General Meeting. He further testified that, despite the suspension letter stating that he would remain on full salary and benefits, not all his employment benefits were restored to him. He stated that the Respondent later wrote to him on 10 July 2024 allowing him to retain the official motor vehicle during suspension. He tendered that letter as Exhibit AM5. He testified that on 25 th September 2024 he received a notice inviting him to attend a disciplinary hearing scheduled for 3 rd October 2024. The charges were gross insubordination and gross negligence. He tendered the notice of disciplinary hearing as Exhibit AM6. He testified that the disciplinary hearing did not proceed in the ordinary manner. According to him, the Respondent repeatedly changed the date and time of the hearing without consulting him. He stated that the hearing was eventually conducted on 7 th October 2024 at about 22:00 hours. He testified that during the hearing he denied all the allegations levelled against him. He maintained that he had not been insubordinate and that he had not acted negligently in the performance of his duties. He stated that after the hearing the Respondent delayed communicating the outcome and that he had to follow up through his lawyers. In support of this, he tendered a letter from his lawyers dated 25th November 2024, marked as Exhibit AM7. He testified that on 12 th December 2024, about two months after the disciplinary hearing, the Respondent issued him with a letter of summary dismissal. He tendered that letter as Exhibit AM8. He stated that the letter indicated that he had been found guilty of insubordination and gross negligence. He disputed those findings and testified that there had been no evidence before the disciplinary panel showing that he was guilty of either charge. He stated that the disciplinary hearing was a sham and was merely used to give effect to a decision which, in his view, had already been made at the Extraordinary General Meeting of 4th July 2024. He further testified that from the time he joined the Respondent, he had never been cautioned for negligence or insubordination. He stated that he had worked diligently for the Respondent for about five years and that he was shocked by the decision to summarily dismiss him. He maintained that he had served the Respondent with due diligence and that the allegations of gross insubordination and gross negligence were not supported by proper evidence. He testified that the dismissal was too harsh in the circumstances and that the Respondent did not treat him with fairness and equity. He also testified on the remedies he was claiming. He stated that since he did not contribute to his dismissal, he was entitled to severance allowance and notice pay. He further stated that under his contract he was entitled to gratuity, which he said had not been paid at the time of dismissal. He also testified that he had accrued 32.9 leave days which had not been paid at the time of his dismissal. On that basis, he claimed compensation for unfair dismissal, compensation for unfair labour practices, severance allowance with interest, notice pay with interest, gratuity with interest, and payment in lieu of accrued leave days. Under cross examination, he confirmed that his employment contract was a fixed-term contract and that it expired in December 2022. He accepted that after the expiry of that contract, he did not have written communication from the Respondent expressly confirming the status of his employment contract. His evidence, however, was that since the Respondent did not offer him another contract and he continued working, he understood the contract to have been renewed automatically. He was referred to paragraph 4 of his witness statement and confirmed the benefits he claimed, including housing allowance, motor vehicle, fuel, medical aid, school fees, and other non-remunerative benefits. On the Extraordinary General Meeting, the Applicant testified under cross examination that he could not confirm whether the meeting was called at the behest of members. He accepted that one of the issues being Page 4Auweni Mukwala v Blantyre Sports Club, IRC Matter No. 32 of 2025 discussed was the contract under which he was operating. He confirmed that he was not present when the resolution concerning his employment was passed and that he did not personally witness the making of that resolution. He explained that he had been taking minutes of the meeting and that when he went out, he delegated the taking of minutes to another person. He stated that he later resumed the task of preparing the minutes. He was cross examined on Exhibit AM2. He accepted that minutes of an Extraordinary General Meeting ought to be prepared, circulated, and signed by the body concerned. He further accepted that Exhibit AM2 was not signed by the body. He testified that the notes were taken by Isaac Kalumba after he had instructed him to take the minutes during his absence. He stated that he prepared the minutes and shared them with the relevant body. He accepted that he had not brought the original copy of the minutes and that the copy tendered was not certified. He nevertheless maintained that the document bore a signature and that it was a true copy. He also accepted that the last page of the minutes referred to the removal of the General Manager. He was also cross examined on the events following the Extraordinary General Meeting. He accepted that he was subjected to a disciplinary hearing before he was issued with the letter of dismissal. He was referred to Exhibit AM3 and confirmed that the document reflected 9 th July 2024, which was also the date on which he received the suspension letter. He testified that the property was not surrendered before that date. He was further referred to paragraph 12 of his witness statement and stated that he could not confirm whether members of the disciplinary hearing panel had been part of the Extraordinary General Meeting, because there were many people present at that meeting. He was also referred to Exhibits IK6 and IK9. He confirmed that Sophie Mlumbe attended the disciplinary hearing as a director. He maintained, however, that the members were not present at the later disciplinary hearing. He also maintained that he had prepared the minutes of the Extraordinary General Meeting and continued to insist that the events following that meeting showed that the decision to remove him had already been made before the disciplinary process was conducted. There was no re-examination. The Respondent’s Testimony Mr Isaac Kalumba testified for the Respondent. He adopted his written witness statement as his evidence in chief and testified in accordance with its contents. He stated that he was the Accountant for the Respondent and that he had worked for the Respondent at all material times, from the period when the Applicant was recruited up to the time his employment was terminated. He described the Respondent as a membership-based social club governed by a Board of Directors elected by and from among its members. He stated that the Respondent operates a club in Blantyre with a restaurant, bar, gym, golf course, swimming pool, football field and other sports facilities. He testified that the Applicant was employed by the Respondent in December 2019 under a written contract of employment. The contract, according to his evidence, was for a fixed term of three years. He stated that under that contract the Applicant was entitled to a monthly basic salary of MK1,300,000.00, which had increased to MK2,020,268.25 by the time the employment relationship came to an end. He also stated that the Applicant enjoyed non-remunerative benefits, including use of a motor vehicle, housing allowance, medical aid, school fees for two biological children, fuel allocation, telephone allowance and gold family club membership. He further testified that when the original three-year contract was about to expire in December 2022, the then Board resolved not to renew it. He referred to email correspondence concerning the expiry of the General Manager’s contract, a round robin resolution not to extend the contract, and communication made to the Applicant, which were tendered as Exhibits IK1, IK2 and IK3. He stated that after a change of the Board, a new Board led by the late Edward Kauka reversed the earlier decision and resolved to retain the Applicant on a Page 5Auweni Mukwala v Blantyre Sports Club, IRC Matter No. 32 of 2025 one-year contract. He tendered the letter reversing the earlier decision and extending the contract as Exhibit IK4. His evidence was that key performance indicators were to be prepared and incorporated into a new contract. He testified that after the lapse of the further one-year period, the Board decided to extend the Applicant’s contract for another year. He stated that a contract was prepared after key performance indicators had been drawn. According to him, the Board Chairperson, Mr Arthur Matekenya, personally went to the Applicant’s office on or about 18th March 2024 to deliver the contract renewal letter and the draft contract. His evidence was that the Applicant refused to sign the contract and ordered the Chairperson to leave his office. He stated that the contract was later sent to the Applicant by email, but the Applicant did not respond. He testified that around the same period, members of the Club directed the Board to hold an Extraordinary General Meeting to discuss various matters relating to the operations of the Club, including the status of the Applicant’s employment. He tendered the notice and agenda of the meeting as Exhibit IK5. He stated that the meeting was initially set for 13 th June 2024 but was eventually held on 4 th July 2024. According to him, the matters discussed at the meeting included the Applicant’s performance and the impasse concerning his contract. He also stated that the Board Chairperson narrated to the meeting what had allegedly transpired between him and the Applicant when he went to deliver the contract documents. He tendered the minutes of the Extraordinary General Meeting as Exhibit IK6. He testified that after the meeting, the Board Chairperson suspended the Applicant from employment on account of the performance and conduct matters raised at the Extraordinary General Meeting, pending a full investigation. He tendered the suspension letter as Exhibit IK7. He further stated that the Applicant was later invited to a disciplinary hearing to answer charges of gross insubordination and gross negligence or dereliction of duty. He tendered the notice of disciplinary hearing as Exhibit IK8. According to his evidence, the disciplinary panel comprised Misheck Esau, Sophie Mlumbe and Willy Nkhoma. On the charge of insubordination, he testified that Mr Arthur Matekenya appeared before the disciplinary panel and gave evidence on what had allegedly occurred when he went to deliver the Applicant’s contract extension documents. He stated that Mr Matekenya told the disciplinary panel that the Applicant ordered him out of his office and told him to consult the Remuneration Committee. On the charge of gross negligence or dereliction of duty, he testified that he personally gave evidence before the disciplinary panel. He stated that, as Club Accountant, he was not involved in the costing of two food supply contracts relating to Malawi College of Accountancy and PUMA. He stated that meals supplied to Malawi College of Accountancy were sold at MK2,500.00 each, which he considered to be at a loss when compared with meals sold at the Club’s restaurant. He further testified that he was not sure whether the PUMA contract was profitable. He also testified that the Applicant was asked to answer issues relating to two construction projects, namely bridge works and the extension of the gym. His evidence was that the Applicant admitted that he had not prepared contractor evaluation reports before advising the Board that quotations had been received. He also stated that the Applicant could not produce the quotations relating to the two works. He testified that after considering the evidence, the disciplinary panel found the Applicant guilty of gross insubordination and gross negligence or dereliction of duty. He tendered the report of the disciplinary hearing as Exhibit IK9. He further testified that on 12th December 2024 the Applicant was summarily dismissed on the basis of the findings of the disciplinary panel, and he tendered the dismissal letter as Exhibit IK10. He testified that the Applicant was later paid gratuity through his lawyers, Micklaw and Company. He tendered the letter and acknowledgement relating to the payment as Exhibit IK11. His overall evidence was that the Applicant had first served under a three-year fixed-term contract, that his employment continued after Page 6Auweni Mukwala v Blantyre Sports Club, IRC Matter No. 32 of 2025 the expiry of that contract, and that his eventual dismissal followed a disciplinary hearing at which evidence was led in support of the charges. Under cross examination, he confirmed that the Applicant had a contract running up to December 2022. He stated that he did not know whether the Applicant was given a new contract after the expiry of the first contract and accepted that the Respondent had not brought such a contract before the Court. He confirmed that the Applicant continued working after December 2022 and that he was dismissed in 2024, close to two years after the expiry of the first contract. He also confirmed that the gratuity which the Respondent paid was based on the 2022 contract. He was further cross examined on the convening of the Extraordinary General Meeting. He confirmed that there was a notice calling for the meeting, but accepted that the Respondent had not produced evidence showing that members forced the Board to call the meeting. He confirmed that the Applicant’s tenure was discussed openly at the meeting and that the Applicant was told to leave the meeting when his tenure was being discussed. He also confirmed that the Board Chairperson expressed displeasure over the manner in which the Applicant had allegedly treated him. He accepted that the Chairperson was present at the meeting, although he was not chairing it. He further accepted that the meeting resolved that the General Manager be removed, and that a former Chairperson expressed surprise that the Applicant was still working when his contract had expired. He was questioned on events after the Extraordinary General Meeting. He confirmed that he received a letter from the Applicant’s lawyers shortly after the suspension. He described it as the letter in which the Applicant, through his lawyers, made a demand of MK300 million. On the issue of the official motor vehicle, he stated that the vehicle was not returned because of that letter. He explained that the Chairperson was surprised because the Applicant had left with the vehicle while still in employment. He was then cross examined on the disciplinary process. He confirmed that Mr Matekenya constituted the disciplinary hearing panel. He stated that the decision on who was to sit on the panel came from the Board. He confirmed that Mr Matekenya was the Board Chairperson. He stated that he did not know who invited Mr Esau to chair the disciplinary hearing panel, and said that the Chairperson would be the person expected to know. He also stated that he attended the disciplinary hearing as part of management. When questioned about whether the Respondent had a code of conduct governing the disciplinary process, he accepted that no such code had been produced before the Court. He stated that he could not confirm whether the appointment of the person to lead the disciplinary panel lay with the Chairperson. He also stated that he did not know whether there was any code that allowed a third party to sit on a disciplinary panel. He further stated that he was not aware that the other persons involved in the disciplinary process had chosen not to testify in the matter. When asked about the arrangement that led to the members of the disciplinary panel sitting, he said that he did not know the arrangement. He accepted that once a disciplinary committee makes its findings, it reports back to the Board for a decision. He also accepted that the Respondent had not attached a Board resolution dismissing the Applicant. He further confirmed that Sophie Mlumbe, who sat on the disciplinary panel, was also the person who signed the dismissal letter. He accepted that there was bad blood between the Board and the Applicant. He confirmed that the disciplinary hearing report itself referred to a poor working relationship between the Board and the General Manager, including concerns that some Board members were working with junior staff. He accepted that the Applicant was charged with insubordination relating to the Chairperson. He admitted that he did not personally witness the interaction between the Applicant and the Chairperson. He also stated that he would not know, from his own knowledge, what evidence was considered on that issue beyond what was recorded in the disciplinary Page 7Auweni Mukwala v Blantyre Sports Club, IRC Matter No. 32 of 2025 process. He accepted that Boniface Chima was recorded as the complainant, but said that he did not know what he said because the minutes did not indicate it. On the allegations of gross negligence, he accepted that there was no policy on food rations. He confirmed that there was a Food and Beverages Manager with whom the Applicant worked in relation to costing. He also accepted that there was no policy requiring the Applicant to work with him, as Accountant, when preparing such costing. He was also questioned about the bridge issue and stated that he did not know certain details relating to it. He confirmed that at the time the Applicant was dismissed there was bad blood between the Chairperson and the Applicant. He also confirmed that the gratuity paid in March 2026 related to the period after the expiry of the first contract. He accepted that the Applicant was dismissed in December 2024 and received the gratuity in March 2026. He further confirmed that the Applicant did not receive notice pay. He stated that the resolution for the Applicant’s removal was made by the members and that the decision to remove him came after that resolution. In re examination, he stated that Mr Kantwanje raised the issue of the Applicant’s contract and the issue of the official motor vehicle during the Extraordinary General Meeting. He also stated that Mr Arthur Matekenya raised issues in his opening remarks at that meeting. He testified that this was how he came to know that there was bad blood between the Board Chairperson and the Applicant.