Joseph Tapera and 17 Others v Field Spark Investments (Pvt) Ltd

The applicants (18 persons) sought registration of an arbitral award made by arbitrator N.M. Tichiwangana on 6 February 2012, which awarded damages totalling US$38,851.00. The respondent opposed the registration on grounds that the quantum of damages was disputed, that the award was granted in default because the respondent failed to timeously submit its submissions for quantification of damages, and that the respondent had subsequently filed an application for rescission of the default judgment before the arbitrator which was still pending.

• Whether an arbitral award could be registered when an application for rescission of default judgment was pending before the arbitrator
• What grounds are permissible for refusing registration of an arbitral award
• Whether a pending application for rescission before an arbitrator constitutes grounds for refusing registration under Article 36 of the Model Law

1. The arbitral award of N.M. Tichiwangana dated 6 February 2012 was registered as an order of the court. 2. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicants the respective sums set out in the award totalling US$38,851.00.

Where an arbitral award has not been stayed or suspended in terms of section 92E(3) of the Labour Act and remains extant, the court will, as a matter of principle, register the award for enforcement unless there are grounds for not doing so as provided for in Article 36 of the Model Law contained in the Arbitration Act. A pending application for rescission of default judgment before an arbitrator does not constitute a ground under Article 36 for refusing registration of an arbitral award. An arbitrator is functus officio after making an award and cannot reverse his or her own decision.

The court observed that it was "myopic" for the respondent to believe that an application for rescission submitted to an arbitrator who was functus officio could prevent registration of an extant award. The court noted that the respondent should have sought suspension of the award through the proper legal mechanism provided under section 92E(3) of the Labour Act if it wished to challenge the award.

This case clarifies the proper procedure for challenging arbitral awards in Zimbabwe labour matters. It establishes that parties cannot use pending applications for rescission before an arbitrator to prevent registration of an award. Instead, the proper remedy is to seek a stay or suspension under section 92E(3) of the Labour Act. The judgment reinforces the limited grounds upon which courts may refuse to register arbitral awards, which are confined to those enumerated in Article 36 of the Model Law in the Arbitration Act. It also confirms the principle that arbitrators are functus officio after making their awards and cannot entertain applications to reverse their own decisions.