The applicant, a former employee of the respondent, obtained an arbitral award in his favour on 3 August 2015. He then sought registration of this arbitral award in terms of section 98(14) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01 read with section 6(5)(6) of SI 217 of 2003. The respondent opposed the application on two grounds: (1) that it had appealed to the Labour Court against the arbitral award under case number LC/MT/150/15, which was pending; and (2) that it had applied for suspension of the arbitral award under case number LC/MT/APP/217/15, which was also pending before the Labour Court. However, the appeal had actually been dismissed for want of prosecution on 26 October 2015. The respondent had then applied for rescission of the Labour Court order, which application had been pending for more than 12 months.
(1) The arbitral award granted in favour of the applicant on 3 August 2015 was registered as an order of the court. (2) The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant a total of US$10,213.90. (3) The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs of suit.
The binding legal principles established are: (1) In terms of section 92E(2) of the Labour Act, an appeal does not have the effect of suspending the determination or decision appealed against. (2) An application for interim relief under section 92E(3) (suspension of an arbitral award) can only be made pending the determination of an appeal; where there is no appeal pending, such an application becomes defective and irregular. (3) The mere pendency of an application for rescission of a default judgment dismissing an appeal does not constitute a valid ground to refuse registration of an arbitral award under section 98(14) of the Labour Act. (4) Registration of an arbitral award is not against public policy where there is no valid pending appeal or suspension application.
The court observed that the respondent's application for rescission had been pending in the Labour Court for more than 12 months, and commented that "it boggles the mind why the respondent has not exercised its rights by seeking an urgent hearing of this application in the Labour Court." The court noted that "the respondent appears content with the status quo while the applicant continues to suffer financial prejudice" - suggesting judicial disapproval of the respondent's dilatory tactics in pursuing its remedies while simultaneously attempting to prevent enforcement of the award against it.
This case clarifies the procedures for registration of arbitral awards under the Labour Act in Zimbabwe. It establishes that: (1) an appeal against an arbitral award does not automatically suspend the award and does not prevent its registration; (2) an application for interim relief/suspension of an award can only be valid while an appeal is pending; and (3) the pendency of an application for rescission of a judgment dismissing an appeal does not constitute sufficient grounds to refuse registration of an arbitral award. The judgment emphasizes that courts will not allow employers to frustrate the enforcement of valid arbitral awards through procedural manoeuvres while employees suffer continuing financial prejudice.