Trevor Pilime and Others v Midriver Enterprises (Private) Limited

The applicants were employees of the respondent company whose employment contracts were terminated in July 2012. An arbitral award dated 20 November 2012 found that the applicants were entitled to salary increases after their probationary period and ordered that they be paid such increases for the period April 2012 to July 2012. The award directed the parties to negotiate the quantum of the increases, failing which they could approach the arbitrator for quantification within 14 days. The respondent noted an appeal in the Labour Court on 6 December 2012 against the award. Despite the pending appeal, the applicants approached the arbitrator for quantification of the increases. The arbitrator proceeded to quantify the amounts on the basis that an appeal does not suspend the operation of the award. The respondent objected on the basis that it had appealed. The applicants then brought a chamber application for registration of the arbitral award in terms of section 98(14) of the Labour Act. The respondent opposed the application, arguing that the award was contrary to public policy because the arbitrator accepted the applicants' claimed figures without any evidence being led to support them.

• Whether the application should have been brought by way of a chamber application or court application
• Whether an arbitral award that quantifies damages without any supporting evidence is contrary to the public policy of Zimbabwe
• What constitutes 'contrary to public policy' in the context of registration of arbitral awards
• Whether an award can be registered where damages were awarded merely because the opposing party did not put forward alternative figures
• Whether the piecemeal approach to arbitral awards (determining liability first and quantification later) is desirable

The application for registration of the arbitral award was dismissed with costs.

An arbitral award that quantifies damages or compensation without any evidence to support the figures awarded, where the amounts are accepted merely because the opposing party did not propose alternative figures, constitutes a palpable inequity that is contrary to the public policy of Zimbabwe and should not be registered for enforcement. Damages must be properly proved by the party seeking them, and this fundamental principle applies even in labour arbitration proceedings. An award is contrary to public policy when the arbitrator's reasoning or conclusion goes beyond mere faultiness or incorrectness and constitutes a palpable inequity that is so far-reaching and outrageous in its defiance of logic or acceptable moral standards that a sensible and fair-minded person would consider that the conception of justice would be intolerably hurt if the award was upheld or enforced.

Zhou J made critical observations about the undesirable practice in labour disputes of dealing with matters piecemeal, where arbitrators or the Labour Court make an initial award on liability and then send parties to negotiate figures, with provision to return for quantification if they disagree. The judge noted that this approach creates a multiplicity of cases and raises questions about whether the initial award is final and appealable, or only becomes final upon quantification. This can result in multiple appeals regarding what is essentially one dispute. The judge expressed the view that 'the time has come for arbitrators and the Labour Court to give final awards or orders unless the parties themselves have asked for an opportunity to negotiate the terms of the orders or awards.' The judge also commented that while labour procedures were meant to be flexible and informal, they now result in orders that are executable like orders of ordinary courts and subject to the same rules relating to appeals, necessitating greater adherence to procedural rules.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean labour and arbitration law for establishing clear principles on the evidential requirements for arbitral awards. It confirms that arbitrators cannot award damages or compensation without a proper evidential basis, and that doing so may render the award contrary to public policy and unenforceable. The case reinforces the principle that even in the relatively informal labour arbitration process, fundamental principles of evidence and proof still apply. The judgment also provides important guidance on when an arbitral award will be considered contrary to public policy - not merely for any error, but only where there is a palpable inequity that offends justice. Additionally, the case highlights procedural issues around split awards in labour disputes and the problems created by determining liability first and quantification later.