Servious Kufandada and 26 Others v Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission

The applicants were employees of the Zimbabwe Anti-Corruption Commission (respondent). A dispute arose between the parties which was referred to arbitration in terms of the Labour Act (Chapter 28:01). The arbitrator R Matsikidze rendered an award in favour of the applicants which was quantified on 20 March 2013. The applicants approached the High Court for the registration of the award in terms of s 98(14) of the Labour Act. The respondent opposed the application on the ground that it had noted an appeal to the Labour Court against the arbitral award, contending that the appeal suspended the operation of the award.

• Whether s 92E of the Labour Act applies to an appeal against an arbitral award filed in terms of s 98(10) of the Labour Act
• Whether an appeal to the Labour Court has the effect of suspending an arbitral award pending determination of the appeal
• Whether an arbitral award can be registered for enforcement while an appeal against it is pending

The court granted the applicants the relief sought and ordered the registration of the arbitral award for enforcement on 17 October 2013. The judgment provides the full reasons for that order following the respondent's noting of an appeal.

Section 92E of the Labour Act applies to appeals made in terms of s 98(10) against arbitral awards. An appeal to the Labour Court against an arbitral award does not automatically suspend the operation of that award. Sections 92E and 98 of the Labour Act must be read together harmoniously. Where the legislature uses the phrase "appeals in terms of this Act" in s 92E without qualification or exclusion, it applies to all appeals provided for under the Act, including appeals against arbitral awards. A party seeking suspension of an award pending appeal must apply to the Labour Court for interim relief under s 92E(3) and satisfy the court that the justice of the case requires such suspension.

The court observed that where there are conflicting positions in judgments, the court should follow not necessarily the later judgment but the one which reflects the correct approach. The court noted that if the legislature had intended to limit the application of s 92E to appeals under sections other than s 98, it would have expressly provided for that exclusion. The judgment implicitly suggests that the earlier decisions in Dhlodhlo and Mvududu may have been incorrectly decided on this point.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean labour law as it resolves conflicting judicial interpretations regarding the suspensive effect of appeals against arbitral awards. The judgment establishes that s 92E of the Labour Act applies to all appeals made in terms of the Act, including appeals against arbitral awards under s 98(10), meaning that such appeals do not automatically suspend the operation of awards. This promotes the enforceability of arbitral awards and prevents delaying tactics through appeals, while preserving the Labour Court's discretion to grant interim relief under s 92E(3) where justice requires suspension pending appeal.