The first and second applicants sought registration of an arbitral award rendered in terms of the Arbitration Act. The respondent had previously instituted an application to have the arbitral award set aside on grounds that it was contrary to the public policy of Zimbabwe, which was dismissed by the High Court. The respondent opposed the present application for registration of the award on the same grounds - that the award was contrary to public policy. The respondent also opposed the costs on the attorney-client scale being sought by the applicants. The respondent alleged that the award was rendered in the absence of terms of reference for the arbitrator, that the rules of natural justice were violated, and that the arbitrator was biased.
The application for registration of the arbitral award was granted in terms of the draft order. Costs were awarded on the attorney-client scale against the respondent.
Where a court has previously dismissed an application to set aside an arbitral award on public policy grounds, it will not revisit that conclusion when the same grounds are raised in opposition to an application for registration of the award. Opposition to registration of an arbitral award that is based on the same facts and grounds previously rejected by the court, without any evidentiary basis, constitutes groundless opposition amounting to an abuse of court process warranting costs on the attorney-client scale as a punitive measure.
The court observed that after the application to set aside the arbitral award was dismissed, the respondent could have adopted a more reasonable approach by notifying the applicants or the court that it consents to registration of the award and seeking discussion only on the question of costs, rather than persisting with groundless opposition. The court noted that costs on the attorney-client scale are a punitive measure by which the court expresses its displeasure at misconduct on the part of a litigant.
This case demonstrates the Zimbabwean courts' approach to enforcing arbitral awards and discouraging abuse of court process through groundless opposition. It establishes that once a court has dismissed an application to set aside an arbitral award on public policy grounds, parties cannot relitigate the same issues by opposing registration of the award. The case also illustrates the courts' willingness to impose punitive costs (attorney-client scale) where opposition is groundless and amounts to abuse of process, particularly where allegations are made without evidentiary support.