Zimind Publishers (Pvt) LTD V Engeline Ngambi & 3 Others

### Preamble
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE
JUDGMENT NO LC/H/403/14
HELD AT HARARE 20TH MAY 2014
CASE NO
---------




IN THE LABOUR COURT OF ZIMBABWE	JUDGMENT NO LC/H/403/14

HELD AT HARARE 20TH MAY 2014			CASE NO LC/H/855/13

& 4TH JULY 2014

In the matter between:-

ZIMIND PUBLISHERS (PVT) LTD					Appellant

And

ENGELINE NGAMBI & 3 OTHERS				Respondent

Before The Honourable L Hove, Judge

For Appellant		S Thabete (Internal Legal Counsel)

For Respondent		J Mautsi (Trade Unionist)

HOVE, J:

This is an application for stay of execution of an award by an arbitrator.

To enable an application of this sort to succeed, the applicant must show that they have good prospects of success in the main appeal, that there is

likelihood of suffering irreparable harm on the part of the applicant and that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the application.

The main appeal seeks to challenge the quantification of damages by an arbitrator.  It is trite that appeals against arbitral awards are only on points of law and not on points of facts.  Section 98 (10) of the Labour Act

[Chapter 28:01] (the Act)

Quantification of damages is an issue of fact and therefore not ordinarily appealable to this court unless it can be shown that the arbitrator in making the award, was grossly unreasonable.

See the cases of

(1) Sable Chemicals Industries vs. Easter Brook 2010 (1) ZLR 342 (S)

(2) Leopard Rock Hotel (Pvt) Ltd vs. Van Beek 2000 (1) ZLR 251 (S) at page 256

a ruling by the tribunal on damages is a ruling on fact and thus not appealable unless it can be categorised as wholly unreasonable.

No such allegation has been made.  The applicant can thus not approach the court on an appeal that seeks to challenge factual conclusions.  Prima facie, the applicant’s prospects of success in view of this hurdle that it faces are almost non-existent.

The justice of the case favours the dismissal of this application since quantification of damages is factual and cannot be challenged unless it can be categorized as wholly unreasonable.

Section 98 (10) of the Act which reads;

“an appeal on a question of law shall lie to the Labour Court from any decision of an arbitrator appointed in terms of this section.”

The section does not allow appeal on questions of fact.

The applicant has also alleged that the respondents will not be able to pay back, apart from this bold assertion no further submissions are made to support that averment.  It therefore remains unsubstantiated and cannot be upheld by this court.

In the result, therefore, the application cannot succeed and must be dismissed.

I therefore make the following order;

Application for stay of execution be and is hereby dismissed.