UZ-UCSF Collaborative Research Programme v Isdore Husaiwevhu and Others

The applicant and the three respondents (first, second, and third respondents) were involved in a long-standing labour dispute arising in 2006 concerning the termination of fixed-term employment contracts. In 2007, arbitrator Mutongoreni issued an award in favour of the respondents. The applicant appealed to the Labour Court, but the appeal did not suspend the award. The respondents obtained quantification of the award from arbitrator Matsikidze: first respondent US$94,920, second respondent US$46,818.78, third respondent US$55,118.48 (total stated as US$788,296.21). The applicant appealed the quantification to the Labour Court, which dismissed the appeal on 28 March 2014. The respondents registered the award in the High Court on 20 October 2010 and issued a writ of execution on 8 May 2014. The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which the Labour Court struck off for being out of time. MAFUSIRE J previously suspended execution (in HC 3973/14), finding the appeal had merit because the arbitrator failed to consider the employee's duty to mitigate damages. That order lapsed when the Labour Court struck the application off the roll. The respondents proceeded with execution, attaching the applicant's operational goods. The applicant filed this urgent application to suspend the writ pending determination of a new application for leave to appeal (LC/H/APP/124/19).

• Whether the court should suspend execution of a registered arbitral award pending determination of an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
• Whether the applicant established the requirements for a final interdict
• Whether the arbitrator erred in failing to consider the duty of employees to mitigate damages in quantifying the award
• Whether the court has jurisdiction to regulate its own processes including suspension of writs of execution
• Whether costs should be awarded in a labour dispute where both parties had legitimate positions

1. The application succeeds. 2. The operation of the writ of execution issued in case No. HC 2411/10 is suspended pending finalisation of the application for leave to appeal in case No. LC/H/APP/124/19. 3. The notice of seizure and attachment of applicant's goods issued by the Sheriff on 2 December 2019 is set aside. 4. Each party shall bear its own costs.

1. A court has inherent jurisdiction to regulate its own processes, including the power to suspend execution of writs of execution issued pursuant to registered arbitral awards. 2. Where suspension of execution is sought on the basis of a pending court process challenging the judgment on which execution is derived, and the challenge has reasonable prospects of success, serious consideration should be given to granting suspension to safeguard the pending litigation and avoid rendering the challenge academic. 3. The requirements for a final interdict are: (a) a clear right established on balance of probabilities; (b) irreparable harm actually committed or reasonably apprehended; (c) absence of similar protection by any other remedy. 4. In quantifying damages in labour disputes, arbitrators must consider the employee's duty to mitigate damages and determine a cut-off point beyond which damages cease - failure to do so constitutes a material misdirection. 5. In labour disputes where both parties have legitimate positions and litigation is ongoing, courts should be slow to make costs orders against either party.

CHITAPI J expressed agreement with MAFUSIRE J's view that the Labour Court had miscalculated the dies induciae (time period) within which the applicant ought to have filed the application for leave to appeal against the quantification award, though the court noted it could not make a declaration on this point as the matter was escalated to the Supreme Court. The court also noted that the parties had attempted settlement, the applicant indicated it had paid the judgment debt by RTGS transfer, and the Labour Court had granted leave to appeal, suggesting the matter might have become academic. The judge expressed regret that COVID-19 lockdowns delayed delivery of the judgment. The court acknowledged that whether the judgment remained relevant was not for it to decide since the respondents (now self-actors after their lawyers renounced agency) requested a written determination on the papers filed.

This case is significant for establishing principles governing suspension of execution of judgments and arbitral awards pending appeals in Zimbabwean law. It confirms the court's inherent power to regulate its own processes, including suspension of writs of execution. The judgment provides important guidance on when courts should exercise discretion to suspend execution where there is a pending challenge with reasonable prospects of success, balancing the need to avoid rendering appeals academic against the right of successful litigants to execute on judgments. The case also reinforces the principle from Ambali v Bata Shoe Company that arbitrators must consider an employee's duty to mitigate damages in quantification of labour dispute awards. It demonstrates the courts' approach to costs in labour disputes, reflecting a policy of not penalizing parties where both have legitimate positions in ongoing litigation.