Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
The High Court has overturned a Kwekwe Magistrates’ Court decision to register an arbitral award in a dispute between Goldridge College and its former employee, Killian Mauni, regarding unpaid wages.
The appeal, heard by Deputy Judge President Garainesu Mawadze and Justice Neville Wamambo, centred on whether Goldridge College was justified in withholding a portion of the award as tax.
The initial arbitral award, issued on October 7, 2024, ordered Goldridge College to pay Mauni a total of US$8 385,44 in unpaid wages.
The college paid US$5 276,28 but withheld US$3 109,16, citing its statutory obligation to remit Pay-As-You-Earn (PAYE) tax to the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA).
Mauni disputed this and sought to have the remaining amount enforced through the Kwekwe Magistrates’ Court.
On November 12, 2024, the Kwekwe Magistrates’ Court granted Mauni’s application to register the award, allowing him to pursue enforcement of the US$3 109,16 balance.
The magistrate ruled that the court’s role was limited to registering the award for enforcement, not addressing the substantive tax dispute.
Goldridge College appealed the decision, arguing that registering the award violated public policy because it ignored the employer’s tax obligations under Zimbabwean law.
Justice Wamambo, delivering the High Court ruling, stated, “An order permitting recovery of the withheld PAYE as though it were net pay would expose the appellant to double liability and allow the respondent to recover more than the law entitles him to receive in hand. That result would unjustly impoverish the appellant and unjustly enrich the respondent.”
The court highlighted that the magistrate erred in dismissing the college’s objection as a mere issue of compliance. Instead, it was a public policy matter, as enforcing the award without accounting for tax obligations would contravene the law.
Justice Wamambo cited previous rulings, including the case of “Zesa v Maposa and Zimbabwe Platinum Mines v ZIMRA”, which emphasise that enforcement of awards inconsistent with mandatory tax compliance is contrary to public policy.
The High Court set aside the Magistrates’ Court order and dismissed the registration application.
The court allowed the appeal with costs, stating that the respondent’s recourse lies in reconciling the tax issue with ZIMRA rather than seeking enforcement of the withheld amount.
Legal experts say the judgment reinforces the principle that courts must consider public policy and statutory obligations before enforcing arbitral awards.
