• Home /
• Our Articles /
• Is arbitration considered quasi-judicial in Zimbabwe?

Is arbitration considered quasi-judicial in Zimbabwe?

The nature and function of an arbitrator in Zimbabwe is not administrative but quasi-judicial. The law in Zimbabwe has for over a century held that arbitration proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature, with an arbitrator (arbiter), properly so called, who acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. In quasi-judicial proceedings, such as those conducted in both ad hoc arbitral proceedings or institutional arbitration, arbitrators are not bound by the same procedural formality or linguistic precision required by courts of record. More recently, the Supreme Court in Brewing and Distilling Employers’ Association v Brewing and Distilling Workers Union & Others SC 125-25 at para 25 held that:

“Arbitration, by contrast, is adjudicative. It bears the solemn character of a quasi-judicial proceeding in which an impartial arbitrator, functioning much like a judicial officer, listens to evidence, applies the law to it, and renders a binding decision. The process culminates not in negotiated peace, but in a determination that carries the authority of finality. Unlike the conciliator, the arbitrator’s mandate is to decide, not to persuade, his award is enforceable as a judgment and leaves little room for continued negotiation.