Jaja v NEC, Engineering, Iron & Steel Industry (HC 4393 of 2015; HH 100 of 2016) [2016] ZWHHC 100 (27 January 2016)

1 HH 100-16 HC 4393/15 JEREMIAH JAJA versus NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT COUNCIL FOR THE ENGINEERING, IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE HUNGWE J HARARE, 27 January 2016 Chamber Application for Registration of an Arbitral Award HUNGWE J: On 22 May 2015 the applicant filed an application for the registration of an arbitral award which he had obtained from an arbitration proceeding. This application was placed before me through the Chamber Book. Upon perusal of the same, I noticed certain inconsistencies in that the sum originally claimed did not add up to the amount finally awarded. I sought clarification through the registrar before I could take the next step by registering the award. The registrar of this court then, on 8 June 2015 addressed correspondence to the applicant’s legal practitioner seeking the clarification aforesaid. On 24 July 2015 the applicant’s legal practitioners filed a supplementary affidavit addressing the query which I had raised in June 2015. On 2 September 2015, the respondent filed a notice of opposition together with an opposing affidavit. On 24 September 2015 the applicant’s legal practitioners filed an answering affidavit together with heads of argument addressing the issues raised by the respondent in opposing the registration of the award. On 29 September 2015 I granted the application for the registration of the arbitral award. On 12 October 2015 the respondent’s legal practitioners filed their heads of argument. On 14 October 2014 the applicant obtained a Writ of Execution Against Movable Property. On 21 October 2015 the respondent addressed correspondence to the registrar requesting that I furnish them with my reasons for the order dated 29 September 2015 registering the award made in favour of the applicant by the arbitrator. HH 100-16 HC 4393/15 It will be clear from the above that the reasons requested are those in support of my order registering the arbitral award. These are they. On 29 September 2015 the papers before me showed that the respondent was opposed to the registration of the award solely on the basis that it had appealed to the Labour Court against the award granted by the arbitrator in favour of the applicant. Registration of an arbitral award is a procedural step taken in terms of s 98 (13) and s 98 (14) of the Labour Act, [Chapter 28:01]. It is in my view a preparatory step recognising the existence of the fact of an award made elsewhere. Upon its registration, the applicant in whose favour it exists may then take the next step, if it remains unsatisfied, to obtain a writ of execution upon it. Upon being approached by an applicant for registration of an award, this court does not inquire into the merits of the award. See: Muneka & Ors v Manica Bus Company HH-30-13; Ndhlovu v Higher Learning Centre HB-86-10 and Mukwenga v Grain Marketing Board HH- 193-12. The presumption is that the merits have been decided already and that any such inquiry wound offend the deference which our courts render to each other. It is, so to speak, in the province of the Labour Court which would be seized with any matter arising from an arbitral proceeding. The basis for opposing the registration was simply that the respondent had noted an appeal against the award in the Labour Court, therefore to register that award would render the appeal academic. Clearly, that submission is hollow. How does the act of registering an award render a subsequent appeal against that award academic? Had this submission been directed at the decision to execute the writ which flowed naturally from the act of registration, then there would have been some logic in the submission. According to West’s Encyclopaedia of American Law, 2nd ed, 2008, the ordinary grammatical meaning of the word “register” is: “to record, or to enter precisely in a designated place, certain information in the public records as is mandated by a statute.” The act of registration was committed on 29 September 2015 in terms of s 98 (14) of the Act. By then, no appeal had, to my knowledge, been noted which would have had the effect of suspending the consequences that would normally flow from the act of registration. See The Heritage School v Monica Seka & Others HH-06-12. By the time the heads were filed the purpose for which argument was being advanced in those heads had been determined. I had not been moved sufficiently to refrain from taking HH 100-16 HC 4393/15 the necessary procedural step by reason of the intended appeal which had been expressed in the opposing affidavit filed by the respondent on 2 September 2015. It was for these reasons that I granted the application for the registration of an arbitral award as a matter of course. Matsikidze and Mucheche, applicant’s legal practitioners Mbidzo, Muchadehama & Makoni, respondent’s legal practitioners