Stanley Machote v Zimbabwe Manpower Development Fund

The applicant had successfully applied to the High Court to have an arbitral award registered (case HC 9609/14). The respondent had opposed the registration on two grounds: (1) that an application for stay of execution of the arbitral award and a general appeal were pending before the Labour Court, and (2) that the arbitral award was against public policy. At the time the registration application was heard, the Labour Court had dismissed the application for stay of execution. Tsanga J granted the application for registration of the arbitral award. The respondent then appealed to the Supreme Court (case SC 421/15) against the decision to register the arbitral award. The applicant then brought this application for leave to execute pending the appeal.

• Whether leave to execute pending appeal should be granted
• Whether the respondent's appeal enjoyed prospects of success
• Whether the arbitral award could be registered despite a pending appeal before the Labour Court
• Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting or refusing leave to execute
• The interpretation and application of section 92E(2) and section 98(14) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01]

1. Leave granted to the applicant to execute the judgment in case HC 9609/14 pending determination of the appeal in case SC 421/15. 2. The respondent to pay costs of suit.

An appeal against a decision regarding an arbitral award under section 92E(2) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01] does not suspend the operation of the decision appealed against. For an arbitral award to operate, it must be registered with either the Magistrates Court or the High Court pursuant to section 98(14) of the Labour Act. Therefore, if an appeal does not suspend the operation of an arbitral award, then the arbitral award must be capable of registration with the appropriate court despite the fact that an appeal is pending. When considering leave to execute pending appeal, the court must weigh: (1) the possibility of irreparable harm to the appellant if leave is granted; (2) the possibility of irreparable harm to the respondent if leave is denied; (3) prospects of success of the appeal; and (4) where there is possibility of irreparable harm to both parties, the balance of hardship or convenience.

The court observed that the respondent appeared to be using the appeal process as a delaying tactic rather than pursuing a genuine legal challenge, noting that the arguments advanced were 'untenable' and that the respondent was 'grasping at straws'. The court also noted that in labour matters involving reinstatement and back pay, there is generally no real prejudice to the employer as they would be paying for work done if the employee is reinstated. The court cited with approval the Labour Court's observation that if the employee is reinstated, the employer will pay for work done, and therefore there is no prejudice to either party in such circumstances.

This case clarifies important principles regarding the registration and execution of arbitral awards in Zimbabwe labour law. It confirms that under section 92E(2) of the Labour Act, an appeal against an arbitral award does not suspend its operation, and therefore the award must be capable of registration despite a pending appeal. The case also provides guidance on when leave to execute pending appeal will be granted in labour matters, emphasizing that parties cannot use appeals as delaying tactics to avoid enforcement of arbitral awards. It reinforces that arbitral awards must be registered with either the Magistrates Court or High Court to become operative, and that objections to awards (such as on public policy grounds or computation methods) must be raised timeously using the proper procedures under the UNCITRAL Model Law.