JUDGMENT NO. CCZ 16/2016 CONST. APPLICATION CCZ 4/2016 Mr Mpofu who appeared for the applicant argued strenuously that s 92E(2) of the Act is inconsistent with Section 56(1) of the Constitution, which provides that all persons are equal before the law and have the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. It was his argument that s 92E(2) of the Act, by providing that an appeal to the Labour Court against a determination or decision did not suspend the determination appealed against, deprived the party appealing of the right to equal protection of the law. Mr Mpofu said it was particularly so since the winning party could then register and execute the award, before the appeal was heard by the Labour Court, thus rendering the appeal academic. Worse still, if an arbitrator ordered reinstatement, an employer would be forced to work with an employee it had already dismissed, pending the appeal. More importantly, Mr Mpofu argued that s 92 E(2) does not pass the test of rationality, when it is considered that decisions of superior courts, like the High Court, are suspended by the noting of an appeal, yet arbitrators’ decisions were not subject to the same limitation. According to Mr Mpofu the irrationality became more apparent when one took into account the fact that arbitrators, unlike Labour Court or High Court Judges, are not required at law to possess any legal qualification, yet they seemed to have carte blanche to adjudicate legal matters and make decisions involving large sums of money and substantial labour entitlements. In the applicant’s view, s 92E(2) of the Act, by providing that an arbitral award is not suspended by the noting of an appeal, prejudiced the party appealing. It infringes the right to equal protection of law enshrined in s 56(1) of the Constitution. Mr Mpofu further submitted that s 98(14) of the Act which provides that an arbitral award may be registered with the High Court or Magistrates Court for enforcement purposes is 3