Judgment No. 19/18 Chamber Application SC 97/18 Ref Case No. SC 847/17 It is the settled position that a judge in chambers cannot exercise the jurisdiction of the appeal court proper. I contrast and distinguish the facts of this application from the facts in University of Zimbabwe v Kwanele M. Jirira and Others SC 6/13 where ZIYAMBI JA granted stay of execution of an arbitral award pending an appeal against the order of the High Court refusing it a stay of execution. In that matter, the first and second respondents, former employees of the applicant, commenced execution against the property of the applicant in satisfaction of an arbitral award whose award and quantification were on appeal before the Labour Court. After the award was registered with the High Court, the applicant unsuccessfully approached the High Court for an order staying the execution. At the time of the hearing of the application for stay of execution, the appeals in the Labour Court had been dismissed and the applicant had applied for leave to note an appeal to the Supreme Court. The application for stay was granted as the Honourable Judge was of the view that the High Court had misdirected itself in holding that it had no jurisdiction in the matter. In that matter the issue for determination by the appeal court was not whether or not the High Court had jurisdiction in the matter but the correctness of the award by the arbitrator and its quantum. In casu, the correctness of the decision by the court a quo not to grant the application for stay are issues for determination both before me in the current application and before the appeal court. As indicated above, it is my view that a judge in chambers does not enjoy parallel jurisdiction to that of the appeal court. 7