Unilever Zimbabwe (Private) Limited v Regiment Murira and Edgar Kutsawa and Sheriff of the High Court

The first and second respondents obtained an arbitral award against the applicant on 31 July 2014 for unfair labour practice, with damages quantified on 15 March 2015. The applicant noted appeals against both awards in the Labour Court (LC/H/809/14 and LC/H/515/15). On 2 February 2016, Mtshiya J registered the arbitral award as an order of the High Court in HC 5240/15, suspending execution until 19 February 2016 in anticipation of the Labour Court appeal judgment. The main appeal was argued before the Labour Court on 29 October 2015 and judgment was reserved. Despite the pending appeal and a pending application for stay of execution in the Labour Court filed on 19 August 2015, the respondents issued a writ of execution on 23 May 2016. On 24 June 2016, the Sheriff attached the applicant's movable property. The applicant then filed this urgent application on 25 June 2016 seeking a stay of execution pending determination of the appeals.

• Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution of a registered arbitral award where a similar application is pending in the Labour Court
• Whether the application constitutes lis pendens given the pending Labour Court application
• Whether the application was urgent or the urgency was self-created
• Whether the applicant established the requirements for a temporary interdict/stay of execution
• The interaction between the High Court and Labour Court jurisdiction in execution of labour arbitral awards

The provisional order was granted as prayed, staying execution of the arbitral award and the attachment pending determination of the appeals in the Labour Court. The Sheriff was interdicted from proceeding with the sale of attached goods.

1. Section 92E(3) of the Labour Act does not expressly or impliedly oust the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under s 171(1)(a) to grant interim relief including stays of execution. 2. An application to stay execution of a High Court order registering an arbitral award does not constitute lis pendens with a Labour Court application for stay of execution of the underlying arbitral award - they involve different subject matter and different parties. 3. For a temporary interdict/stay of execution, an applicant must establish: (a) a prima facie right though open to doubt; (b) well-grounded apprehension of irreparable injury; (c) absence of alternative remedy; and (d) balance of convenience in applicant's favour. 4. The real and substantial justice test applies - a stay of execution will be granted where injustice would otherwise result. 5. Where an appeal is pending determination and execution proceeds, urgency arises from the respondent's decision to execute despite pending proceedings, not from the applicant's conduct.

Chitapi J expressed significant discomfort about the current legislative framework requiring labour matters to be executed through the High Court, noting this creates jurisdictional confusion and inefficiency. The judge stated: "The Labour Court should be given teeth to enforce its orders and not merely suspend them. A lot of confusion and uncertainty has been created in this area of the law and the sooner the problems are attended to the better for the case management system and timely relief for the litigants who invariably bed hop between this court, the Labour Court and the magistrates court." The judge also commented on the undesirability of parallel processes running simultaneously in different courts, calling it "undesirable and untidy" and calling for rules to be synchronized. The judge expressly reserved his position on whether he agreed with the legal position that registered arbitral awards become orders of the High Court, noting he received no argument on this issue.

This case highlights the jurisdictional complexities and practical difficulties arising from the intersection of High Court and Labour Court powers in relation to execution of labour arbitral awards. It confirms that the High Court retains jurisdiction to stay execution of its own orders (registered arbitral awards) even where similar relief is sought in the Labour Court. The judgment adds to the body of jurisprudence calling for legislative reform to give the Labour Court full powers to execute and enforce its own orders, rather than the current system requiring registration in the High Court. The case demonstrates judicial concern about parallel processes running in different courts and emphasizes the real and substantial justice test in stay of execution applications.