Graham Mavhudzi and Manuel Mafa and Collen Stephen Huchu v Gokwe Town Council

The three applicants were employees of the respondent (Gokwe Town Council) who were involved in a labour dispute regarding alleged non-payment of overtime. The dispute went to arbitration and on 13 April 2012, arbitrator Masimba Shamu issued an award directing the respondent to pay the applicants a total of $13,587.52. The respondent did not comply with the award and instead lodged an appeal to the Labour Court on 9 May 2012, but failed to apply for suspension of the award pending appeal under s92E(3) of the Labour Act. The appeal was dismissed by the Labour Court on 26 February 2013. The applicants then approached the High Court seeking registration of the arbitral award for enforcement purposes under s98(14) of the Labour Act.

• Whether an arbitral award issued under the Labour Act should be registered for enforcement where an appeal has been noted but no application for suspension of the award pending appeal was made under s92E(3) of the Labour Act
• Whether the High Court can consider the merits of an arbitral award or appeal when determining an application for registration of the award
• What grounds are acceptable for refusing registration of an arbitral award

1. The arbitral award dated 13 April 2012 by Arbitrator M. Shamu was registered as an order of the High Court. 2. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicants the total sum of $13,587.52. 3. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of suit.

Registration of an arbitral award issued under the Labour Act is a procedural remedy that cannot be refused merely because an appeal has been noted. The award can only be refused registration if: (1) the party against whom the award was made has obtained interim relief under s92E(3) of the Labour Act for a stay or suspension of the award pending appeal; or (2) the party establishes grounds of refusal as set out in Article 36 of the Model Law in the Arbitration Act [Cap 7:15]. Under s92E(2) of the Labour Act, an appeal does not automatically suspend an arbitral award. In an application for registration of an arbitral award, the court does not sit to review the arbitrator's decision or exercise appellate powers, and cannot consider the merits of the award or the appeal.

The court noted that the respondent's grounds of opposition - that the award was appealed against and that it was allegedly faulty for awarding payment in US dollars for claims covering a period before multi-currencies were introduced - were not acceptable grounds for refusing registration. The respondent's counsel conceded that there were no acceptable grounds for refusal. The court cited supporting authorities including Chaire & Ors v Mt Darwin Bazaar HH121/13, Greenland v Zichire HH93/13, and Kukura Kurerwa Bus Co v Mukwena & Ors HH477/14 for the proposition that registration can only be refused in the circumstances outlined.

This case reinforces the procedural framework for enforcement of arbitral awards under the Labour Act in Zimbabwe. It clarifies that the mere noting of an appeal does not suspend an arbitral award unless an application for suspension is made under s92E(3) of the Labour Act. The case emphasizes the limited role of the High Court in registration applications - the court does not review the merits of the arbitral award or appeal, but only considers whether proper grounds for refusal exist. This promotes the finality and enforceability of arbitral awards in labour disputes and discourages respondents from using appeals as delaying tactics without seeking proper suspension orders.