The applicant, Tian Ze Tobacco Company, sought registration of an arbitral award issued by arbitrator J Mambara on 21 October 2014. The award directed the respondent, a farmer, to pay the applicant $43,800.26 plus interest at 5% per annum from 30 September 2012 and costs on a legal practitioner and client scale. The amount in question was the purchase price of farming inputs sold and delivered to the respondent. The arbitration was conducted in terms of an arbitration clause in the parties' agreement under the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15]. However, the arbitrator erroneously issued a certificate in terms of section 98(13) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01], despite the arbitration not being a labour matter.
The arbitral award dated 21 October 2014 was registered as an order of court. The respondent was ordered to bear the costs of the application.
1. Where a deponent of a founding affidavit states under oath that they have authority to represent a company, the absence of a company resolution is not fatal to the application unless contrary evidence is produced showing lack of authority. The court must be satisfied that it is the proper party litigating, and each case must be considered on its merits. 2. An erroneous certificate issued by an arbitrator under the wrong statute (section 98(13) of the Labour Act instead of the Arbitration Act) does not invalidate an otherwise valid arbitral award. Such a certificate is a nullity that cannot affect the validity of the award itself. 3. Recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award may only be refused on the grounds set out in Article 36 of the Model Law contained in the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15], and these grounds must be properly established by the party opposing enforcement.
The court made critical observations about respondents who raise frivolous defences: 'It is now fashionable for respondents who have nothing to say in opposition to question the authority of the deponent of a founding affidavit in order to appear to have a defence.' The court also made a pointed comment about the arbitrator's error in issuing the Labour Act certificate: 'Mr Mambara must be so used to arbitrating labour disputes that he quickly generates that certificate like an automaton, a machine without feeling.' The court described the erroneous certificate as 'Christmas come early for a litigant which had no other defence to the application.'
This case is significant for clarifying two important procedural matters in Zimbabwean law: (1) it establishes that production of a company resolution is not automatically required to prove authority of a deponent in every case, particularly where the deponent has sworn under oath that they have such authority and no contrary evidence is presented; and (2) it demonstrates the robust approach courts take to enforcing arbitral awards by refusing to allow technical errors extraneous to the award itself (such as an erroneously issued certificate under the wrong statute) to invalidate an otherwise valid arbitration process. The case reinforces the pro-enforcement approach to arbitral awards consistent with the Model Law framework.