Precious Mukwenga v Grain Marketing Board

The applicant was employed as a seasonal creditors clerk by the respondent from November 2005 to July 2006, after which her contract was terminated and she received her benefits. She was re-engaged in the same capacity from April 2007 to March 2009. During this second period, she was not made to sign any contract forms as had previously been the case. She was then informed that her contract had been terminated. Aggrieved by this termination, she referred the matter to arbitration. In a default judgment, the arbitrator ruled that the respondent must reinstate her with full pay and benefits, or alternatively pay her terminal benefits of $7,088.00 through the Ministry of Labour by 30 June 2009. The applicant then sought to register this arbitral award as an order of the High Court in terms of section 98(14) of the Labour Act.

• Whether an arbitral award certified in terms of the Labour Act can be registered as an order of the High Court despite a pending appeal in the Labour Court
• Whether the existence of a pending appeal and application for interim relief constitutes grounds for refusing registration of an arbitral award
• The proper interpretation and application of section 98(14) of the Labour Act regarding registration of arbitral awards

The court ordered: (1) The arbitration award number 48/09 be and is hereby registered as an order of the High Court; (2) The respondent be and is hereby ordered to reinstate the applicant as a creditors clerk, with full pay and benefits, backdated to 1 April 2007; (3) In the event that reinstatement as ordered in paragraph 2 is no longer possible, the respondent is hereby ordered to pay the applicant, through the Ministry of Labour, terminal benefits in the sum of US$7,088.20 on or before 30 June 2009; (4) The respondent shall pay the costs of this application.

Once a certificate is given confirming an arbitral award under the Labour Act, there is no impediment to its registration as an order of the High Court in terms of section 98(14) of the Labour Act. For as long as the arbitral award has not been suspended or set aside on review or appeal in terms of the Labour Act, there is no basis upon which the High Court may decline registration of the same. A pending appeal or application for interim relief in the Labour Court does not prevent or delay the registration of an arbitral award in the High Court.

The court observed that any misgivings that a party may have on the merits of an arbitral award or any interlocutory order it may seek must be directed to the court of competent jurisdiction, that is the Labour Court, rather than being raised as grounds for opposing registration in the High Court. This comment reinforces the proper allocation of jurisdiction between different courts in labour matters.

This case establishes an important principle regarding the registration of labour arbitral awards in Zimbabwe. It confirms that the High Court has a ministerial duty to register certified arbitral awards under section 98(14) of the Labour Act, and that the mere existence of a pending appeal or application for interim relief in the Labour Court does not constitute grounds for refusing registration. The case reinforces the separation of functions between the High Court (which registers awards) and the Labour Court (which deals with appeals and suspensions of awards). This promotes certainty and enforceability of arbitral awards while preserving the right to appeal to the appropriate forum.