{"issue_text":"Whether the Labour Court has jurisdiction to review an arbitral award under Article 34 of the Arbitration Act","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Parties' arbitration agreement and Labour Amendment Act provisions"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the arbitral award is in conflict with public policy of Zimbabwe","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Arbitrators acting as representatives rather than adjudicators; failure to consider evidence of affordability"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the applicant proved that the award would cause company closures and job losses","issue_type":"fact","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Lack of financial evidence presented"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant sought review of an arbitral award granting a 20% wage increase to employees, arguing it would cause company closures and job losses. The respondent opposed, challenging the court's jurisdiction and arguing the award was reasonable. The court found the arbitrators erred by acting as conciliators rather than adjudicators and by not considering evidence of affordability.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases