Andrew Muzamhindo v Zimbabwe Cricket

On 17 July 2009, an arbitrator granted an arbitral award of $103,208.35 to the plaintiff as arrear commission against the defendant. The plaintiff registered the arbitral award on 11 October 2012 under HC 5479/09. The defendant commenced payment in 2012 and completed payment in 2015. On 17 August 2017, the plaintiff issued summons under HC 7584/17 claiming payment of $30,962.52 as interest that allegedly accrued on the sum of $103,208.39, plus further interest and costs on an attorney-client scale. The defendant entered appearance to defend and excepted to the plaintiff's summons, arguing that the arbitral award did not award interest and that the court had no power to award relief outside the arbitral award. The plaintiff later filed amended summons reducing the interest claimed to $25,400 and anchoring his claim on Article 31(6)(b) of the Arbitration Act read with s 5 of the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act.

• Whether the court has power to award relief that was not included in the original arbitral award
• Whether the plaintiff needed to issue fresh summons to claim interest on the arbitral award
• Whether Article 31(6)(b) of the Arbitration Act automatically awards interest on arbitral awards that are silent on interest
• Whether the plaintiff's claim for interest had prescribed

The plaintiff's claim was struck off the roll with costs. The defendant's exception succeeded in part.

Where an arbitral award is silent on interest, Article 31(6)(b) of the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15] automatically provides that the sum directed to be paid by the award shall carry interest from the date of the award to the date of payment at the same rate as a judgment debt. This interest is awarded by operation of law and forms part of the arbitral award. A party entitled to such interest does not need to issue fresh summons to claim it but may recover it through normal enforcement mechanisms. Court orders and arbitral awards properly issued cannot be interfered with or altered except through the processes of appeal, review, or rescission under Rule 449 of the High Court Rules, 1971.

The court observed that the registration of an arbitral award serves only to allow enforcement through the mechanisms available to the registering court. The court is not required to look at the merits of the award during registration, but must only satisfy itself of six matters: (a) the award was granted by a competent arbitrator; (b) the award sounds in money; (c) the award is still extant; (d) the award has not been set aside on review or appeal; (e) the litigants are the parties; and (f) a certificate under the hand of the arbitrator validating the award has been furnished. The court noted that both parties "missed the point" - the plaintiff in issuing unnecessary summons and invoking the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act, and the defendant in raising prescription as a defense when prescription did not apply to interest that was already part of the award by operation of law.

This case clarifies important principles regarding arbitral awards in Zimbabwean law, particularly the automatic operation of Article 31(6)(b) of the Arbitration Act which provides for interest on arbitral awards even where the award is silent on interest. It reinforces the principle that court orders and arbitral awards cannot be altered except through proper legal mechanisms (appeal, review, or rescission), and that courts become functus officio after making orders. The case also demonstrates the proper procedure for recovering interest on arbitral awards - enforcement rather than fresh litigation. It serves as a cautionary example of how both parties can misunderstand the legal position, with the plaintiff incorrectly issuing fresh summons and the defendant incorrectly excepting on the basis that interest was not awarded when it was automatically conferred by statute.