Charles J. Makari v Toll Free Zimbabwe (Private) Limited

On 13 February 2017, an arbitral award was handed down by Arbitrator Brighton Mudiwa in favour of the applicant, granting him US$17,559.54 in arrear salaries and unquantified damages. On 11 October 2017, the damages were quantified at US$10,080.00, payable in two equal instalments - the first by 11 November 2017 and the second by 11 December 2017. On 30 October 2017, before the first instalment was due, the applicant approached the High Court seeking registration of the arbitral award in terms of section 98(14) of the Labour Act. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the applicant had not given it an opportunity to comply with the award before seeking registration. The respondent also claimed it was no longer operating and was struggling financially with no employees.

• Whether an arbitral award can be registered before the debtor has defaulted on payment obligations
• Whether the registration of an arbitral award in terms of section 98(14) of the Labour Act is a matter of course
• Whether financial difficulties of a respondent constitute valid grounds to oppose registration of an arbitral award

The arbitral award handed down by Arbitrator B. Mudiwa on 13 February 2017 and quantified on 11 October 2017 was registered as an order of the court. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of the application.

The registration of an arbitral award in terms of section 98(14) of the Labour Act is a matter of course as long as the award remains enforceable and unsatisfied. The registration process is not a review process but merely an application for registration. An arbitral award should only be refused registration if its enforcement would offend public policy or constitute an affront to the conception of justice of a fair-minded person. Financial difficulties or the struggling state of a company do not constitute valid grounds to oppose the registration of an arbitral award.

The court observed that the registration process could be done through the Registrar of the High Court with a certificate of registration being granted to the beneficiary of the award, suggesting a simplified administrative process. The court also noted the respondent's claim that it was no longer operating and was staggering to survive with no employees, but this observation did not influence the legal outcome and was made only to acknowledge the respondent's submissions at the hearing.

This case confirms the procedural nature of applications for registration of arbitral awards under the Labour Act in Zimbabwe. It establishes that registration is largely a ministerial function and a matter of course, provided the award is enforceable and unsatisfied. The case reinforces that financial difficulties of a judgment debtor do not constitute valid grounds to oppose registration of an arbitral award. It also clarifies that applicants need not wait for actual default before seeking registration, as the court will consider whether the award has been satisfied by the time of the hearing. The judgment provides useful guidance on the limited grounds for refusing registration (public policy violations) and distinguishes the registration process from review proceedings.