Judgment No. SC 10/18
Criminal Appeal SC 185/14
Concerns arose regarding whether or not the award did not conflict with the public policy of
Zimbabwe insofar as it referred to the parallel market rate.
On 3 June 2013 the arbitration panel amended the award by severing the offending
words such that the relevant portion of the award now read:
“Tel One is to pay Unitrack an amount equal to US$70 719.00 obtaining on the day of
payment, which is to be within 48 hours of the uplifting of this Award.”
The award was not complied with. The appellant then applied, under HC4641/13,
for the registration of the arbitral award as an order of the High Court for purposes of
enforcement. The application for the registration of the arbitral award was served on the
respondent’s legal practitioners. The respondent’s legal practitioners wrote a letter to the
appellant’s, indicating that the application was premature and unnecessary at that stage. No
opposition to the application was filed with the court.
The application was granted by the High Court. Notably, in addition to the
registration of the arbitral award, the order of the High Court further provided for the payment
of interest. The arbitral award itself made no such provision. The order also provided for the
costs of the application to be borne by the respondent on a legal practitioner/client scale.
The respondent thereafter applied, in terms of Order 49 r 449 of the High Court
Rules, 1971, for the rescission of the judgment on the premise that it was granted in its absence.
Furthermore, that the order was erroneously sought and erroneously granted as the initial award
had not made any provision relating to the payment of interest and costs. The High Court
granted an order, in HC154/14, in the following terms:
“IT IS ORDERED THAT:
2