The applicant was dismissed from employment by the respondent. An arbitrator issued an award on 21 October 2014 directing reinstatement without loss of salary and benefits, or alternatively, damages in lieu of reinstatement if reinstatement was not tenable. The parties negotiated a settlement and signed a deed of settlement on damages of $40,902.30 to be paid in 3 equal instalments commencing on 31 December 2014 and ending 28 February 2015. The respondent only paid $7,000.00, leaving a balance of $33,902.30. On 11 March 2015, the arbitrator issued another award quantifying the damages at $40,902.30 to be paid in full within 7 days. The applicant sought registration of this award as an order of the High Court for enforcement purposes under s 98(14) of the Labour Act. The respondent opposed only to the extent that it had already paid $7,000.00, and the applicant conceded this point, seeking an amendment to reflect the outstanding balance of $33,902.30.
1. The arbitral award dated 11 March 2015 by arbitrator E. Nyamanhindi was registered as an order of the High Court. 2. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $33,902.30 being the outstanding balance of the amount awarded. 3. The respondent was ordered to pay costs of suit.
The binding legal principles established are: (1) Registration of arbitral awards under s 98(14) of the Labour Act is for enforcement purposes only, given that the Labour Court and arbitrators lack enforcement mechanisms; (2) The court has liberty to register only that portion of an arbitral award that is lawfully due and outstanding, and may recognize for enforcement purposes only the unpaid balance where partial payment has been made; (3) There is no legal basis for enforcement of amounts that have already been paid under an arbitral award.
The court made significant obiter observations regarding costs in registration applications. Mathonsi J observed that the process of registration is merely administrative and arises from expediency and a lacuna in the law, not from the respondent's conduct. The court expressed the view that unless there is something more caused by the respondent's conduct (such as filing meritless opposition), there should be no award of costs for registration, as it is the legislature's omission to provide enforcement mechanisms that necessitates the application, not the respondent's actions. The court noted that if arbitrators or the Labour Court could issue writs for execution, there would be no need for registration applications. However, the court was bound by the respondent's consent to costs in this particular case.
This case is significant in Zimbabwean labour law for establishing principles regarding the registration of arbitral awards. It clarifies that registration under s 98(14) of the Labour Act is purely for enforcement purposes due to the lack of enforcement mechanisms available to arbitrators and the Labour Court. The case also establishes important guidance on costs in registration applications, holding that costs should generally not be awarded unless the respondent's conduct justifies it, as the need for registration arises from a legislative gap rather than the respondent's fault. The judgment provides authority for courts to register only the portion of an award that remains outstanding where partial payment has been made.