NAME OF THE CASE
Matthews v Caster Int (Pvt) Ltd
CITATION
HH 497-17
NAME OF THE COURT
High Court
CITY AND COUNTRY
Harare, Zimbabwe
KEY WORDS
Arbitral award, registration, amendment, quantification, appeal
CASE SUMMARY
The applicant before the High Court was an ex-employee of the respondent. A dispute between the applicant and the respondent was referred for arbitration. On 28 June 2012, an arbitral award was issued in favour of the applicant. The award set the amounts due to the applicant as salary for August 2007 and severance package in the sum of US$7 000.00 and US$42 000.00 respectively. The applicant was also awarded cash-in-lieu of leave. However, the amount due was not quantified in the award. The applicant filed an application in 2012 seeking the registration of the arbitral award. The application was dismissed with costs on 19 August 2015 on the basis that the arbitral award, in so far as it related to payment of cash-in-lieu of leave, was not sounding in money. The award was not severable and therefore not capable of registration. The applicant referred the matter to an arbitrator for quantification of the award. On 13 October 2015, the arbitrator amended the award with the addition of the amount due as cash-in-lieu of leave in the sum of US$ 26 329.55. The applicant appeared before the High Court for the registration of the amended award. The respondent contended that the award was a nullity and not registrable as the amendment was effected over 3 years after the award was issued and that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to render the award . The applicant contended that the arbitrator quantified, rather than amended, the award. The first issue is whether the applicant is automatically, as a matter of right, entitled to register an award upon satisfying the conditions specified in Section 98 (14) of the Arbitration Act. In order to qualify for registration, the applicant must simply satisfy the following:
a) He is a party to the arbitral proceedings.
b) The award relates to him.
c) The copy of the award he is presenting for registration has been duly certified by the arbitrator in terms of Subsection (13).
Key holdings:
- The judge held that once the applicant has satisfied the above three requirements he is entitled as of right to register the arbitral award in terms of Section 98 (14), as read with Subsection (13).The court held that the applicant had satisfied the above requirements and thus the award remained extant. The only way the respondent could challenge this award was by way of noting an appeal.
