Godfrey Fore v Metallon Gold Zimbabwe Private Limited

The applicant was employed by the respondent as Mine Finance Manager from 2004. The respondent failed to pay a number of contractual benefits, some dating back to 2006. The applicant resigned and was serving notice when he referred the dispute to conciliation on 6 June 2015. The matter remained unresolved on 13 August 2015 and was referred to compulsory arbitration. The arbitrator granted an award in favor of the applicant for various amounts including salary arrears, leave days, leave bonus, pension enhancement, pension not remitted, school fees, travel allowance, and entitlement to purchase a motor vehicle. On 8 December 2015, the applicant applied to the High Court to register the arbitral award as an order of court. The respondent opposed registration on the basis that it had appealed the award to the Labour Court and had applied for a stay of execution. The application for stay was dismissed by the Labour Court on 2 March 2016.

• Whether the High Court should register an arbitral award when an appeal is pending before the Labour Court
• Whether an arbitral award should be registered when no stay of execution has been granted
• The role and powers of the High Court in registering arbitral awards

The arbitral award was registered as an order of the High Court on 9 May 2016, granting the applicant: (i) Salary Arrears - $48,590.39 Net; (ii) Leave days - $17,426.70; (iii) Leave Bonus - $17,039.44; (iv) Pension enhancement - $158,109.12; (v) Pension not remitted to MIPF - $73,208.70; (vi) School fees - $34,300 (of which $11,433.33 is taxable, balance $22,867.00 is net); (vii) Travel Allowance - $41,333.32; and (2) entitlement to purchase the motor vehicle he was using in terms of the Motor Vehicle policy.

Unless an arbitral award lawfully granted and sounding in money is complied with, set aside, or successfully appealed against, and unless a stay or suspension of the award has been granted by the Labour Court in terms of section 92E(3) of the Labour Act, the High Court will register an extant and competent arbitral award for enforcement. The High Court, when registering an arbitral award, does not have review or appeal powers and will only refuse registration on grounds provided for in Article 36 of the Model Law contained in the Arbitration Act. The mere existence of a pending appeal does not constitute grounds for refusing registration.

The court noted that the fate of the appeal in the Labour Court was not disclosed, but observed that in any event, the appeal would not suspend execution of the award. The court also remarked that it was repeating principles it had stated in previous judgments, suggesting some frustration with parties continuing to oppose registration of awards on grounds that had already been settled by jurisprudence.

This case reinforces the principle in Zimbabwean labour and arbitration law that the High Court's role in registering arbitral awards is ministerial rather than supervisory. It clarifies that pending appeals do not automatically prevent registration of arbitral awards, and that parties must obtain a stay of execution from the Labour Court under section 92E(3) of the Labour Act if they wish to prevent enforcement pending appeal. The judgment emphasizes the importance of finality and enforceability of arbitral awards in labour disputes.