Andrew Machaya v CFI Holdings Limited T/A Farm and City Centre

The applicant sought registration of a Labour Court judgment (LC/H/2020) dated 25 September 2020, which awarded him US$177,408, in terms of section 92B(3) of the Labour Court Act [Chapter 28:01]. The respondent opposed the application on several grounds: (1) that the judgment was unenforceable and contra bonos mores; (2) that it purported to revive a prescribed matter; (3) that it ordered payment in United States Dollars for a debt that arose prior to 2019, which should be deemed to be at 1:1 with the RTGS dollar per S.I 33/19 and Finance Act (No.2 of 2019); and (4) that the judgment was subject to an appeals process as the respondent had sought leave to appeal which was pending in the Labour Court.

• Whether the High Court can refuse to register a Labour Court judgment on the grounds that it conflicts with law or public policy
• Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review the merits of a Labour Court judgment in registration proceedings under section 92B(3) of the Labour Court Act
• Whether the currency denomination in a Labour Court judgment is a matter that can be challenged in registration proceedings or only on appeal
• Whether a pending application for leave to appeal suspends or prevents registration of a Labour Court judgment
• What are the requirements for registration of a Labour Court judgment under section 92B(3) of the Labour Court Act

1. The application for registration of Labour Court judgment number LC/H/203/2020 in terms of section 92B(3) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] was granted. 2. The Registrar of the High Court was directed to register Labour Court judgment number LC/H/203/2020 as a judgment of the High Court. 3. The respondent was ordered to pay costs.

When considering an application for registration of a Labour Court judgment under section 92B(3) of the Labour Court Act [Chapter 28:01], the High Court's function is administrative and limited to verifying that: (a) the award was granted by a competent court; (b) the award sounds in money; (c) the award is still extant and has not been set aside on review or appeal; (d) the litigants are the parties to the award; and (e) the award is properly certified. The High Court does not have jurisdiction to review the merits of the Labour Court judgment or to refuse registration on grounds that go to the substantive correctness of the decision, including questions of law such as currency denomination. Such challenges must be pursued through the appellate process under section 92F of the Labour Court Act. A pending application for leave to appeal does not suspend registration of a Labour Court judgment, as registration is distinct from enforceability. An appeal does not suspend the decision appealed against.

The court observed that the respondent had persisted in clearly legally unsustainable arguments against registration of the arbitral award, which justified an order for costs. The court also noted, approvingly, the Labour Court's exercise of its equitable jurisdiction to order payment of damages into an operational and realisable currency when quantifying historical amounts that were originally denominated in the defunct Zimbabwean dollar. The court distinguished the facts from those in Mudyavanhu v Cairns Foods Limited, noting that in the present case the Labour Court had properly quantified amounts that arose during different currency regimes. The court also noted that at the hearing, the respondent made no submissions regarding prescription, which the court indicated was the correct approach.

This case clarifies the limited scope of the High Court's jurisdiction when registering Labour Court judgments under section 92B(3) of the Labour Court Act. It reinforces the principle that the High Court performs an administrative function in registration proceedings and cannot usurp the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by reviewing the merits of Labour Court decisions. The judgment is particularly significant in establishing that: (1) challenges to the substantive correctness of Labour Court judgments, including issues of currency denomination and application of statutory instruments, must be pursued through the appeal process under section 92F, not resisted in registration proceedings; (2) pending appeals do not suspend registration of judgments; and (3) registration is distinct from enforceability. This case contributes to the jurisprudence on the enforcement mechanisms for Labour Court judgments and the proper delineation of High Court powers in this context.