Sophia Munemo v Staysun Investments (Pvt) Ltd t/a Sports Bar

On 18 March 2015, Arbitrator F. Matanhire issued an arbitral award in favour of the applicant (Sophia Munemo) ordering the respondent (Staysun Investments (Pvt) Ltd t/a Sports Bar) to pay the applicant the sum of US$10,407.22. The applicant approached the High Court seeking registration of the arbitral award in terms of s 98(14) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] so that it could become an order of court and be enforceable. The respondent initially raised three points in limine: (1) that there was no arbitral award to be registered, (2) that the applicant had adopted the wrong procedure, and (3) that the dispute was pending in the Labour Court (lis pendens). However, the respondent abandoned all three points in limine at the hearing.

• Whether the arbitral award should be registered as an order of the High Court in terms of s 98(14) of the Labour Act
• Whether the arbitral award offended against public policy notions of justice and fairness
• Whether the arbitrator's methodology in dealing with allegedly illegible records was proper

1. The arbitral award issued by Honourable Arbitrator F. Matanhire on 18 March 2015 was registered as an order of the High Court. 2. The respondent was ordered to pay the sum of US$10,407.22 to the applicant. 3. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the application.

When considering an application for registration of an arbitral award under s 98(14) of the Labour Act, the High Court does not sit as an appeal court. An arbitral award will only be refused registration if it offends public policy of Zimbabwe, which involves situations where outcomes have been motivated by fraud or corruption or failure to completely appreciate the issues. Procedural complaints about the arbitrator's methodology do not constitute grounds for refusing registration of an award.

The court observed that the respondent's complaint that the arbitrator should have requested legible records from the parties rather than taking a robust approach was a matter of procedural methodology within the arbitrator's discretion, and did not rise to the level of a public policy violation that would justify refusing registration of the award.

This case clarifies the test for registration of arbitral awards under s 98(14) of the Labour Act in Zimbabwe. It confirms that the High Court does not sit as an appeal court when considering registration of arbitral awards, and that awards will only be refused registration where they offend public policy, which is limited to situations involving fraud, corruption, or complete failure to appreciate the issues. The case demonstrates a narrow approach to refusing registration of arbitral awards, promoting finality in labour arbitration proceedings.