Brian Muneka and Others v Manica Bus Company

The first applicant, Brian Muneka, was employed by the respondent and was laid off from employment in 2009 without benefits. Together with other employees, he approached an arbitrator through the Labour Court, leading to compulsory arbitration in terms of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01]. On 11 February 2011, the arbitrator made an award in favour of the applicant and his fellow employees, ordering the respondent to pay a total of US$40,103.81 in benefits. The first applicant was awarded US$9,774.22 covering notice pay, leave days, salary shortfalls, housing and transport allowances, damages for loss of employment, gratuity, and unpaid off days. The respondent was served with the award in March 2011 but failed to pay. The applicant then approached the High Court to register the arbitral award for enforcement purposes. Of the six purported applicants, only the first applicant was properly before the court due to defective powers of attorney for the others. The second, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants had since settled with the respondent, leaving only the first and third applicants, though the third applicant was not properly before the court.

• Whether the respondent's legal practitioner was competent to swear to the opposing affidavit
• Whether the correct legal framework for registration of the arbitral award was the Labour Act or the Arbitration Act
• What grounds, if any, exist for declining registration of an arbitral award made under the Labour Act
• Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to refuse registration of a certified arbitral award pending appeal or rescission applications before the Labour Court
• The proper procedure for registering arbitral awards obtained through compulsory arbitration under the Labour Act

1. The arbitral award by Conrad V. Chinembiri dated 11 February 2011, to the extent it applies to the first applicant, was registered as an order of the High Court. 2. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of suit.

1. In labour disputes referred to compulsory arbitration under the Labour Act [Cap 28:01], the Labour Act takes precedence over the Arbitration Act and any other enactment. 2. Registration of arbitral awards under s 98(14) and (15) of the Labour Act is for enforcement purposes only, and such awards remain orders of the Labour Court to be managed and controlled under the Labour Act. 3. Registration of an arbitral award under the Labour Act should be granted as a matter of course as long as the award has not been suspended or set aside on review or appeal in terms of the Labour Act. 4. Pending rescission or appeal applications before the Labour Court do not constitute grounds for the High Court to decline registration of a certified arbitral award. 5. An arbitral award obtained through compulsory arbitration under the Labour Act has the same status as an order of the Labour Court by virtue of s 98(9) which gives arbitrators the same powers as the Labour Court.

The court observed that the practice of registration through application which is then served on the other party and often opposed is not what the legislature envisaged. The court suggested that registration could be done through a register in the High Court with a certificate of registration being granted to the beneficiary of the award. The court also noted that the party opposing enforcement has remedies available, including opposing the process of execution on legal or reasonable grounds, or seeking interim relief under s 92E(3) of the Labour Act pending determination of an appeal. The court commented that both parties have equal choices upon an award being made, and that the object of interim determinations is to balance the interests of both parties pending appeal.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean labour law jurisprudence as it clarifies the procedure and legal framework for registering arbitral awards obtained through compulsory arbitration under the Labour Act. It establishes that such awards should be registered as a matter of course for enforcement purposes, and that the Labour Act takes precedence over the Arbitration Act in labour disputes. The judgment reinforces the principle that the Labour Court has exclusive jurisdiction over labour matters and that pending appeals or rescission applications do not constitute grounds for refusing registration of an award. It also clarifies that registration is purely for enforcement purposes while the award remains an order of the Labour Court subject to variation or amendment by that court.