R.G. Wallbridge v Enfield Zimbabwe

### Preamble
1
HH 215-13
HC 13415/12
---------


R.G. WALLBRIDGE

versus

ENFIELD ZIMBABWE

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MTSHIYA J

HARARE, 9 July 2013 and 16 July 2013

A. Marara, for the applicant

M. Makore, for the respondent

MTSHIYA J:  This an application for the registration of an arbitral award as an order of this court for purposes of enforcement.

The application is made in terms of s 98(14) of the Labour Act [Cap 28:01] (“the Act”) which provides as follows:

“(14)	Any party to whom an arbitral award relates may submit for registration the copy of it furnished to him in terms of subs (13) to the court of any magistrate which would have had jurisdiction to make an order corresponding to the award had the matter been determined by it, or, if the arbitral award exceeds the jurisdiction of any magistrates court, the High Court.”

Furthermore Section 98(15) also provides as follows:-

“Where an arbitral award has been registered in terms of subs (14) it shall have the effect, for purposes of enforcement, of a civil judgment of the appropriate court”.

The award for registration has never been challenged and reads as follows:-

“1.	The respondent has not committed an unfair labour practice.

2.	For the reasons given above, it is ordered that Claimant be paid $35 068-00 is

salary arrears, in instalments of $500-00 per month with the first instalment being due effective on or by 30 September 2012. Subsequent to that, monthly instalments will be due on or by the last day of each month.”

Clearly part 2 of the award sounds in money and thus rendering it registrable.

On 9 July 2013 I granted the order sought in the following terms:-

“1.	The Arbitral Award dated 13 September 2012 by the Honourable D. Mudzengi

be and is hereby registered as an order of this Court.

2.	There shall be no order for costs.”

I then indicated that my reasons would follow. I therefore give here below the reasons for my ruling.

The applicant, in terms of the section of the Act quoted above, has exercised his discretion to have the award, granted in his favour, registered. The respondent opposed the registration purely on the ground that it is currently complying with the requirements of the award. The respondent accepts though that it is entirely in the applicant’s discretion to have the award registered. Apart from saying it is complying with part 2 of the award, the respondent raises no acceptable reason(s) that could militate against the registration of the award. There is therefore, in my view, no valid reason for the defendant to oppose the registration of the award.

The registration of the award indeed enables enforcement of same and in registering it the applicant is merely protecting his rights as provided for in our law. In the event that there is indeed religions compliance with the award on the part of the respondent, the need to enforce/execute will never arise. I therefore found no justifiable reason for turning down the  application to have the award registered as prayed for.

I totally associated myself with PATEL J, as he then was, when, in Gaylord Bandi v Kenmark Builders (Private)Limited HH 4/12, he said:-

“Section 93E(2) enables the labour Court to suspend or stay an arbitral award upon an application by the aggrieved party. Where no such application is made or where it is dismissed, subsections (14) and (15) of s 98 entitle the successful party to apply for registration and enforcement of the award”

For the above reasons, I accordingly registered the award as indicated above.

Mutamangira & Associates, applicant’s legal practitioners

Maunga Maanda & Associates, respondent’s legal practitioners