The applicants were former employees of the respondent bank who were retrenched on 21 November 2011. They disputed the calculation of their retrenchment packages. The dispute was referred to compulsory arbitration under s 93(5)(c) of the Labour Act. An arbitrator, M.C. Kare, issued an award on 8 February 2013 finding that the respondent had committed an unfair labour practice and ordered recalculation of retrenchment packages. On 10 November 2017, the arbitrator issued a quantification award specifying amounts payable to the applicants. The respondent challenged this award through review proceedings. After protracted litigation involving the Supreme Court, the Labour Court on 20 May 2024 granted the respondent's review application and set aside the 10 November 2017 arbitral award. The applicants then approached the High Court seeking registration of the arbitral award for enforcement under s 98(14) of the Labour Act, arguing that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to review the award and that its order was void ab initio.
The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
The binding legal principles established are: (1) Where the authority of a deponent to act on behalf of a company is challenged, proof of such authority in the form of a board resolution must be produced, and failure to do so renders the purported pleading invalid (applying Dube v Premier Service Medical Aid SC 73/19); (2) For an arbitral award to be registrable under s 98(14) of the Labour Act, it must satisfy all requirements including that it is still extant and has not been set aside on review or appeal; (3) An arbitral award that has been set aside by the Labour Court on review cannot be registered for enforcement, regardless of whether the party challenges the validity of the review order; (4) A court order remains valid and binding unless and until it is set aside by an appropriate court exercising review or appellate jurisdiction; (5) In an application for registration of an arbitral award under s 98(14), the High Court has very limited jurisdiction and cannot determine contentious questions about the Labour Court's jurisdiction to review arbitral awards - such questions must be pursued through proper review or appellate channels.
The court made several non-binding observations: (1) The court acknowledged the principle that courts must give special consideration to self-acting litigants and accommodate procedural shortcomings that are not fatal, citing Crnkovic v Mpofu CCZ 01-24; (2) The court noted that affidavits should not plead law and that legal arguments and case citations should be reserved for heads of argument, though it considered them in this case given the applicant was self-acting and the respondent did not object; (3) The court observed that the 2013 award ordering recalculation of retrenchment packages was not registrable as it did not sound in money - only the 2017 quantification award was capable of registration; (4) The court noted that the applicant's argument regarding the Labour Court's lack of jurisdiction under s 98(2) and (9) read with article 34 of the Model Law generates a debate that requires comprehensive determination by an appropriate appellate or review court, but expressed doubt about whether those provisions support the argument that s 92EE does not apply to compulsory arbitration awards; (5) The court commented on the respondent's dilatory approach in failing to produce the board resolution over 8 months despite the issue being raised, describing it as trying to "close the stable when the horse had already bolted."
This case is significant in Zimbabwean labour law for several reasons: (1) It reinforces the strict requirement that companies must produce board resolutions when a deponent's authority to act on behalf of the company is challenged, following Dube v Premier Service Medical Aid SC 73/19; (2) It clarifies the limited jurisdiction of the High Court when considering applications for registration of arbitral awards under s 98(14) of the Labour Act - the court cannot usurp the review or appellate functions and must simply be satisfied that registration requirements are met; (3) It confirms that an arbitral award that has been set aside by the Labour Court on review cannot be registered for enforcement, even if the applicant challenges the validity of the review order; (4) It emphasizes that challenges to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to review arbitral awards must be pursued through appropriate review or appellate proceedings, not collaterally in registration applications; (5) It demonstrates the principle that court orders have the force of law and remain binding unless set aside through proper channels, and cannot simply be disregarded even if alleged to be void for lack of jurisdiction.