Kadoma City Council v Kadoma City Council Employees and The Deputy Sheriff – Kadoma N.O

Kadoma City Council (applicant) and its employees (first respondent) were engaged in a wages/salaries dispute from 2011 onwards. Three arbitral awards were issued: two by Honourable A. Nani (20 January 2012 and 30 January 2012) and one by Honourable S. Zimuto (March 2014). The award of 20 January 2012 directed the Kadoma Municipality Workers Council to draft and adopt a payment plan for 2012 by February 2012. On 12 March 2014, the first respondent registered the 20 January 2012 arbitral award with the High Court under s 92B(3) of the Labour Act. The applicant filed a rescission of judgment application on 27 March 2014. On 2 May 2014, the Deputy Sheriff (second respondent) attended at the Council's offices with a writ of execution, attached property worth $1,445,447.28, and scheduled removal for 12 May 2014. The applicant filed this urgent application on 6 May 2014 to interdict the removal of property pending finalization of the rescission application.

• Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter or whether it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court
• Whether the application was properly brought on an urgent basis
• Whether the registered arbitral award of 20 January 2012 was an order sounding in money and therefore executable
• Whether the interdict should be granted pending finalization of the rescission application
• Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the relief

The application succeeded with costs. The court granted the interdict preventing removal of the applicant's property pending finalization of the rescission application.

Once a Labour Court decision, order or determination is registered with the High Court or magistrates' court in terms of s 92B(3) of the Labour Act, it ceases to be an order of the Labour Court and becomes an order of the court in which it is registered. The court in which registration occurs has jurisdiction to deal with matters relating to the manner of registration and enforcement of that order, even though the underlying dispute is labour-related. Challenges to the procedure of registration and enforcement fall within the jurisdiction of the registering court, while challenges to the substance of the arbitral award remain within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court. An arbitral award that merely directs parties to draft and adopt a payment plan is not an order sounding in money and is therefore not executable by way of attachment and sale of property.

The court commended counsel for the first respondent for enriching the court's understanding of labour law disputes and contracts of employment through the case authorities cited. The court noted that the applicant's submissions on the jurisdictional point were 'most unhelpful' as they did not advance cogent and convincing reasons supporting their position beyond a bare statement of principle. The court expressed that the error made by the first respondent in registering a non-executable award was 'not only regrettable but also unfortunate.'

This case clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries between the Labour Court and the High Court in Zimbabwean labour law, particularly regarding enforcement of arbitral awards. It establishes that while the Labour Court has exclusive jurisdiction over labour matters, the High Court retains jurisdiction over matters relating to the registration and enforcement of Labour Court orders once registered under s 92B(3) of the Labour Act. The case also emphasizes the principle that only orders sounding in money are executable, and that directives or procedural orders cannot be enforced through attachment and sale of property. This has important implications for the enforcement of labour-related awards and the appropriate forum for challenging registration procedures.