JUDGMENT NO. CCZ 16/2016 CONST. APPLICATION CCZ 4/2016 When a party fails to utilise a remedy provided by the law for the protection of its rights it cannot seek refuge from the underlying constitutional provision. It must first show why the remedy provided for the protection of its rights by a statute is not an effective remedy. Failure to invoke a remedy designed for the protection of a right does not give rise to a question of violation of the fundamental right to equal protection of the law. The submission that “unskilled arbitrators”, as Mr Mpofu described them, have carte blanche to issue awards which are not suspended by an appeal, is self-serving and cannot be sustained. The Act has enough safeguards to ensure that erroneous decisions are not carried to execution. Not only can the Labour Court, upon application in terms of s 92E (3), suspend a determination by the Arbitrator, his or her decision would be appealable to the Labour Court itself in terms of s 98(10) of the Act. The matter may go up to the Supreme Court on appeal from the decision of the Labour Court in terms of s 92F(1) of the Act. The Court turns to consider the contention that s 98(14) of the Act is unconstitutional. Section 98(14) provides for the administrative process of registration of an arbitral award which would have been granted by the Arbitrator. It provides as follows: “Any party to whom an arbitral award relates may submit for registration the copy of it furnished to him in terms of subsection (13) to the court of any magistrate which would have had jurisdiction to make an order corresponding to the award had the matter been determined by it, or, if the arbitral award exceeds the jurisdiction of any magistrates’ court, the High Court.” In registering an arbitral award the High Court and the Magistrates Court are not carrying out a mere clerical function. While the registering Court may not go into the merits of the award, since its duty is to provide an enforcement mechanism and not to usurp the powers of 8