David Badza v Café Expresso

1
                                                                                   HH 372-21
                                                                                  HC 5838/20


DAVID BADZA
versus
CAFÉ EXPRESSO


HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE
CHIRAWU-MUGOMBA J
HARARE, 22 June 2021


Opposed Application


E. Dondo, for the applicant
T.T.G Musarurwa, for the respondent


        CHIRAWU-MUGOMBA J: This matter raises the fundamental issue of whether or
not a Labour Court judgment denominated in United States Dollars is capable of registration
by this court.
        The applicant filed a chamber application for the registration of a Labour Court
judgment in terms of S92B(3) of the Labour Act, [Chapter 28:01]. The court dismissed an
application for postponement of the hearing by the respondent. The basis was that there is a
pending application for a declaratory order in HC 6410/20. The court noted that its role was
to merely register the order and the proceedings for a declaratur could not be used as a basis
for the postponement. After hearing arguments the court granted the application ex tempore.
The respondent as entitled, has requested for reasons. These are they.
The applicant seeks registration of a Labour Court judgment handed down on the 25 th of
September 2020. The order provides that the respondent should pay applicant the sum of
US$9870 within 30 days from the date of granting of the order. The judgment sounds in
money and it has not been complied with.          It has also not been appealed against or
challenged. It remains extant.
      The respondent takes no issues with the award itself but with the currency of payment.
It contends that the arbitral award as confirmed by the Labour Court was issued on the 20 th of
August 2018 before the passing of S. I 33/19 particularly s4 (1)(d). Therefore the amount
ought to be paid is R.T.G.S $ 9870 on the basis of 1.1 with the United States Dollars.
         The law on the registration of Labour Court awards is clear. It is for purposes of
enforcement. In Chimango and anor v I.CRC, MTSHIYA J had this to say,
                                                                                                  2
                                                                                          HH 372-21
                                                                                         HC 5838/20

       “As correctly pointed out by the applicants, “this court is not sitting as an appeal court or
       review court”. In terms of s 92 F of the Act, the respondent can appeal to the Supreme Court
       against a decision of the Labour Court. The section provides as follows:
       “92F Appeals against decisions of Labour Court

       (1) An appeal on a question of law only shall lie to the Supreme Court from any decision of
           the Labour Court.

       (2) Any party wishing to appeal from any decision of the Labour Court on a question of law
           in terms of subsection (1) shall seek from the President who made the decision or, in his
           or her absence, from any other President leave to appeal that decision.

       (3) If the President refuses leave to appeal in terms of subsection (2), the party may seek
           from the judge of the Supreme Court to appeal.”

       “Indeed, if the respondent, as submitted in the heads of argument, felt that the decision of the
       Labour Court offended public policy, it had all the right to take advantage of the above
       provision in our law. It would therefore be totally irregular for this court to assume appeal
       powers over Labour Court decisions. To that end, the second point of opposition cannot be
       entertained.”

In Mudyavanhu vs. Cairns Foods Limited, HH-298-21, DUBE J had this to say,
       “These sentiments apply with equal force to registration of Labour Court judgments. The
       power of this court under S92 B(3) of the Labour Court does not extend to setting the
       judgment or order sought to be registered aside for whatever reason. The court has no
       mandate to delve into the merits of the matter. It merely performs administrative functions
       without an entitlement to look into the correctness or otherwise of the judgment or order it
       seeks to register. Its role remains that of simply recognising that the judgment exists for the
       purposes of enforcement. Were the court to deal with challenges to the jurisdiction of the
       Labour Court, it would amount to it sitting as an appeal court”

       In casu, the respondent raised before the Labour Court the issue of the currency. After
considering the objection to the currency by the respondent, it proceeded to confirm payment
in United States Dollars. There is no basis for this court to change that ruling and indicate
that payment should be in R.T.G.S. This court is not sitting as a review or appeals court. The
issue of currency being a question of law, remains the domain of the Supreme Court on
appeal. The application is therefore granted.
   Accordingly an order is issued as follows:-
   1. The Labour Court judgment LC/H/209/20 be and is hereby registered as an order of this
      court.

   2. The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant the sum of US$ 9870 within 30 days of the
      date of this order.

   3. The respondent shall pay the costs.
                                                           3
                                                   HH 372-21
                                                  HC 5838/20

Saunyama Dondo, applicant’s legal practitioners
M.C Mukome, respondent’s legal practitioners