Kukura Kurerwa Bus Company v Simba Mukwena and Others

The first, second and third respondents were former employees of the applicant who had been awarded funeral allowance reimbursements by labour arbitrator Lester Murenje on 23 May 2014, with payment due by 31 May 2014. The applicant did not comply with the arbitral award but instead noted an appeal to the Labour Court on points of law. The appeal remained pending. The respondents registered the award for enforcement purposes in the Magistrates Court in Mutare in terms of section 98(14) of the Labour Act and issued a writ of execution. On 15 August 2014, the messenger of court attached and removed the applicant's Volvo omnibus registration number AAS 3641. The applicant then brought an urgent application to the High Court seeking the release of the bus and a stay of execution until the appeal was finalized.

• Whether an appeal to the Labour Court automatically suspends an arbitral award pending determination of the appeal
• Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to stay execution of an arbitral award when an appeal has been noted to the Labour Court
• Whether the proper forum for seeking suspension of an arbitral award pending appeal is the Labour Court under section 92E(3) of the Labour Act
• Whether the registration of the arbitral award by the Magistrates Court was proper

The application was dismissed with costs.

An appeal to the Labour Court does not automatically suspend an arbitral award under section 92E(2) of the Labour Act. A party seeking suspension of an arbitral award pending determination of an appeal must approach the Labour Court under section 92E(3) for interim relief, not the High Court. The High Court does not have jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution of an arbitral award when the proper remedy lies with the Labour Court under the statutory scheme provided in the Labour Act.

The court observed that registration or enforcement of an arbitral award can only be refused where an application for stay of execution or suspension of the award is made in terms of section 92E(3) of the Act or upon the person against whom it is invoked satisfying the court of the existence of grounds of refusal set out in Article 36 of the model law in the Arbitration Act. The court also commented on the deficiencies in the applicant's draft order, noting it was not in Form 29C as required by the High Court Rules. The court reiterated the trite principle that an application stands and falls on the founding affidavit and that evidence cannot be led from the bar.

This case is significant in clarifying the proper procedure for seeking suspension of arbitral awards pending appeals to the Labour Court in Zimbabwe. It confirms that section 92E(2) of the Labour Act explicitly negates the common law position that an appeal automatically suspends execution, and that parties seeking interim relief must approach the Labour Court under section 92E(3), not the High Court. The case reinforces the principle of forum specificity in labour disputes and the limits of the High Court's jurisdiction in matters where the legislature has provided a specific statutory remedy in a specialist tribunal.