Sheila Greenland v Zimbabwe Community Health Intervention Research Project (ZICHIRE)

The applicant was employed by the respondent, a non-governmental organisation running two health-related projects from two different premises (28 Van Praagh Avenue and 35 Van Praagh Avenue in Milton Park, Harare), as a project co-ordinator/manager. A labour dispute arose when the respondent purported to suspend the applicant from employment. The dispute was referred to arbitration, but the respondent failed to attend the arbitration proceedings despite being notified. The arbitrator, D Mudzengi, made an award in favour of the applicant on 7 June 2011, ordering the respondent to pay US$261,448.14 in arrear salary and benefits and to reinstate the applicant unconditionally. The applicant then sought registration of the arbitral award as an order of the High Court for enforcement purposes in terms of Article 35 of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act.

• Whether the arbitral award should be registered as an order of the High Court for enforcement purposes
• Whether the respondent's opposition based on a distinction between two different addresses of the same organisation was sustainable
• Whether a pending review application in the Labour Court suspends an arbitral award and prevents its registration
• Whether punitive costs should be awarded for frivolous opposition

1. The arbitral award of Hon D Mudzengi dated 7 June 2011 was registered as an order of the High Court. 2. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant US$261,448.14 being salary and benefits arrears. 3. The respondent was ordered to pay costs on a legal practitioners and client scale.

An arbitral award that has not been set aside, stayed or suspended under section 92E(3) of the Labour Act remains extant and enforceable, and must be registered by the High Court for enforcement purposes unless grounds exist under Article 36 of the model law in the Arbitration Act for refusing recognition or enforcement. A review application to the Labour Court does not automatically suspend an arbitral award, and to hold otherwise would allow litigants to circumvent the statutory provision in section 92E(2) that appeals do not suspend arbitral awards. The High Court's role in registration applications is not to question the propriety of the award itself, but only to determine whether grounds exist for refusing recognition or enforcement.

Mathonsi J made strong observations about the unacceptable habit of litigants "trifling with courts of law" and bringing courts into disrepute through frivolous litigation. The judge characterized the opposition as "the height of turpitude" and emphasized that courts must send a message that they will not allow themselves to be drawn into kindergarten-level disputes. The judge noted that even if the respondent had sought to rely on the pending Labour Court review application (which it had not done), the applicant would still be entitled to have the award registered because it remained effectual and in force.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean labour and arbitration law for establishing that: (1) arbitral awards remain enforceable despite pending review or appeal applications unless specifically stayed or suspended by the Labour Court under section 92E(3) of the Labour Act; (2) the principle in section 92E(2) that appeals do not suspend arbitral awards applies equally to review applications to prevent circumvention of the statutory provision; (3) courts will not tolerate frivolous opposition to registration of arbitral awards and will impose punitive costs as a deterrent; and (4) technical objections based on minor administrative distinctions (such as different addresses of the same entity) will be rejected where there is clear identity of the party involved.