A 12-YEAR-OLD US$95,322 arbitral award involving General Agriculture and Plantation Workers Union of Zimbabwe (GAPWUZ) and The Wattle Company Limited has hit a legal hurdle after the High Court ruled that the amount could not simply be registered without first accounting for Zimbabwe's major currency and monetary changes.
Justice Samuel Muzenda struck the application off the roll, saying GAPWZ had failed to establish the amount of money that could lawfully be registered and ultimately executed in 2026.
The dispute dates back to an arbitral award issued in Mutare on November 12, 2013, when the arbitrator awarded the amount in question.
GAPWZ approached the High Court seeking registration of the award, a process that would allow it to obtain a court order for execution.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
Wattle Company opposed the application, arguing, among other things, that the award had not been made in United States dollars and that the US$95 322 claim could have been affected by Statutory Instrument 33 of 2019.
The company argued that if the court accepted that the claim could be pursued in US dollars, SI 33 of 2019 would have affected the amount.
GAPWZ argued that the currency objection had nothing to do with the requirements for registration of an arbitral award and should instead be dealt with at the execution stage.
Muzenda rejected Wattle Company's preliminary objection, finding that the currency issue was not one of the requirements for registration.
However, the judge went on to find that the currency and monetary changes could not be ignored when determining whether the 2013 award was capable of being registered and executed today.
"It is safe to add that given the inflationary trend within the versatile economic environment, a court has to also look at the legislative financial legal changes that had been promulgated since the award," Muzenda said.
The judge said a court could not register an award in a form that created fresh uncertainty at the execution stage.
"A court cannot grant a registration of an award order which becomes inexecutable, vague and open to further litigation," he ruled.
The court noted that Zimbabwe's monetary landscape had undergone major changes since the award was issued in 2013, including the introduction of SI 33 of 2019.
Muzenda said the award therefore had to be considered against the subsequent legislative changes before registration.
He found that the US$95,322 award fell within the ambit of SI 60 of 2024 as a debt that existed before the instrument came into force.
The judge also held that the award was a debt requiring consideration under SI 33 of 2019.
"The duty of computation for the present value of money arising out of an arbitral award which has been presumably affected by subsequent legislative changes obviously falls on the shoulders of the applicant," Muzenda said.
GAPWZ therefore had to approach the appropriate court to have the updated value of the award determined before seeking its registration.
"Applicant cannot just approach a court for registration of such a long outstanding arbitral award granted twelve (12) years ago," the judge said.
The court said the US$95 322 awarded in 2013 could not simply be presented as the amount to be registered in 2026 without accounting for the impact of subsequent monetary legislation.
"Applicant failed to establish what 'money' as of today it is seeking to be registered," Muzenda said.
He said registration was ultimately intended to facilitate execution, making it essential for the court to know precisely what amount was being registered.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
"From November 2013 the USD 95 322 has been affected in value and the order once registered would look as if that amount has never grown in value or affected by the monetary policy changes like SI 33 of 2019."
The application was consequently struck off the roll, with GAPWZ required to first satisfy the court on the amount to be registered in light of the subsequent financial legislation.
The court declined Wattle Company's request for punitive legal practitioner-client costs, noting that its preliminary objections had failed and that GAPWZ had met the other requirements for registration.
The application was therefore struck off with ordinary party-and-party costs.
The ruling leaves the 2013 arbitral award unresolved for execution, pending determination of the amount that should now be presented for registration after taking into account Zimbabwe's post-2013 monetary and legislative changes.
