Enforceability of Interim Arbitration Awards in Zimbabwe

The Model Law has the force of law in Zimbabwe. The Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15] gave effect to both the New York Convention and the Model Law in Zimbabwe. In terms of the Model Law and how it applies to Zimbabwe, an arbitral tribunal has the power to make an interim award, interlocutory award or a partial award. Put differently, the law in Zimbabwe recognizes different types of awards.

Notwithstanding the fact that Zimbabwe has not yet adopted the revisions contained in the 2006 Model Law and in particular Article 17H of the Model Law which deals with the recognition and enforcement of interim measures, the superior courts in Zimbabwe have jurisdiction to set aside interim awards and to recognize and enforce interim arbitration awards in Zimbabwe.

The first reported decision concerning the Model Law in Zimbabwe is Walenn Holdings (Pvt) Ltd v Lloyd N.O. & Another 1996 (2) ZLR 383 (H) in which the High Court pursuant to the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case, refused to set aside an interim arbitration award in Zimbabwe.

There is therefore no legal impediment in enforcing an interim arbitral award. The Commercial Division of the High Court of Zimbabwe set aside an Interim Award in the matter of City of Harare v Univern Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd t/a Southern Region Trading Co & Another HH 346-23. However, the Zimbabwean courts as a general rule, are slow to intervene in incomplete proceedings. The High Court in Zimbabwe Electricity Transmission & Distribution Company v Masawi & Others 2020 (1) ZLR 1296 (H) 1306 held that:

“Allowing parties to apply for setting aside of awards during the arbitration proceedings has the undesirable effect of staying proceedings whilst courts determine their enforceability and thereby causing delays.”