The respondent obtained an arbitral award from Mr Chavura on 23 December 2003, which was registered as a High Court order on 29 April 2005. The award was quantified by Mr C.H. Lucas on 21 January 2008 at Z$1,724,555.80. The respondent was dissatisfied and instituted multiple proceedings in the Labour Court, High Court, and Supreme Court, all of which were dismissed on technical grounds. The applicant never paid the award amount. In 2009, Zimbabwe abandoned the Zimbabwe dollar for a multi-currency system before payment was made. The respondent continued seeking enforcement and variation of the award, mostly acting in person. On 12 October 2017, the applicant approached the High Court seeking a decree of perpetual silence against the respondent, alleging abuse of court process through multiple applications.
The application was dismissed with costs on the ordinary scale against the applicant.
An application stands or falls on its founding affidavit, which must contain all relevant information including proof of authority where the deponent is not a conventional company representative. Multiple applications by an unrepresented litigant attempting to enforce a valid arbitral award that has never been set aside do not constitute abuse of court process warranting a decree of perpetual silence, particularly where the applicant seeking such decree has itself refused settlement and falsely denied the validity of the claim.
The court observed that the respondent was now at liberty to enforce his award following the resurrection of the Zimbabwe dollar by Statutory Instrument 142 of 2019, which came into effect on 24 June 2019 and abandoned the multi-currency system. The court also noted that offices such as Managing Director, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board, or Human Resources Director are usually the offices which represent companies in litigation, and questioned what authority a 'Human Resources Business Partner' had to represent the company.
This case demonstrates the court's protection of unrepresented litigants seeking to enforce legitimate claims, and confirms that multiple applications by a self-actor attempting to enforce a valid arbitral award do not constitute abuse of process where driven by genuine confusion over procedural technicalities. The case also highlights the strict requirements for proof of authority when a company representative deposes to founding affidavits, and affirms the principle that an application stands or falls on its founding affidavit. It illustrates judicial willingness to look past technical deficiencies where substantive justice requires enforcement of valid awards.