The Republic of Zimbabwe has a long history of arbitration, which can be traced back to British annexation, occupation and later colonisation. A significant feature of the current arbitration regime after independence on 18 April 1980 was the adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration in Zimbabwe on 13 September 1996. See “25 Years of UNCITRAL Model Law in Zimbabwe” (2022), by Prince Kanokanga, in University of Zimbabwe Students Law Review, pp 147–187.

The adoption of the Model Law in Zimbabwe gave effect to domestic and international arbitration through the enactment of the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15], which has resulted in the increased use and practice of arbitration in Zimbabwe by both domestic and international parties.

In Zimbabwe, the Model Law applies to both domestic and international arbitration and commercial and non-commercial disputes. Domestic parties generally resort to the use of arbitration, which has thus become prevalent and is generally contractually stipulated by parties to both domestic and international transactions.

The government has also recommended the use of arbitration in many of the statutes that have been enacted, providing for compulsory arbitration. In fact, the Model Law in Zimbabwe is resorted to by domestic parties in resolving consumer disputes under the Consumer Protection Act [Chapter 14:14]. See “Consumer Arbitration in Zimbabwe: A Road Less Travelled” (2022), by Prince Kanokanga, in Midlands State University Law Review Special Issue, pp 8–34.

The Model Law also applies to employment and labour disputes pursuant to Section 98(2) of the Labour Act [Chapter 28:01].

Given that arbitration proceedings are private and confidential in nature and generally not published in Zimbabwe, it is difficult to determine whether there are any industries that have experienced significant international arbitration activity in recent years. However, a trend indicated by both the reported and unreported judgments of the superior courts in Zimbabwe is that the industries that have experienced the most significant arbitration activity in recent years include, but are not limited to:

• construction and infrastructure;
• capital markets;
• energy;
• joint ventures;
• mining;
• telecommunications;
• transport; and
• public procurement.

The Commercial Arbitration Centre (CAC), established in 1996 in Harare, remains the most popular arbitration institution in Zimbabwe for Zimbabwean parties involved in international arbitration. Other domestic institutions, such as the African Institute of Mediation and Arbitration (AIMA) – established in 2013 – and the Alternative Dispute Solutions Centre (ADSC) are gaining traction.

In March 2026, the government of Zimbabwe established the Victoria Falls International Arbitration Centre (VFIAC). It is the first statutorily enacted arbitration institution in Zimbabwe. Moreover, it is the first arbitral institution in Zimbabwe within an international financial services centre.

In enacting the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15], the legislature in Zimbabwe did not designate non-judicial authority with functions of arbitration assistance and supervision. In adopting the Model Law, the legislature designated the High Court of Zimbabwe as the sole designated judicial organ vested with the authority to perform the administrative and adjudicative functions concerning the Model Law in the country.

The Commercial Division of the High Court is a specialised court in Zimbabwe. It has jurisdiction to deal with the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards of a business or commercial nature.

The Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15] gave effect to the UNCITRAL Model Law and governs both domestic and international arbitration in Zimbabwe. The UNCITRAL Model Law was adopted with minor modifications.

The Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15] has not been amended to incorporate the 2006 amendments. Section 2(3) of the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15], which came into effect on 13 September 1996, deals with the international origin and general principles set out in Article 2A of the UNCITRAL Model Law adopted in 2006. In interpreting the Model Law, an arbitral tribunal or a court in Zimbabwe is required to have regard to the travaux preparatories to the Model Law, and to the international origin of the Model Law so as to achieve international uniformity in its interpretation and application. See Mtetwa & Another v Mupamhadzi 2007 (1) ZLR 253 (S).

In Riozim Ltd & Another v Maranatha Ferrochrome (Pvt) Ltd & Another SC 30-22, the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe held that arbitral tribunals and courts, in interpreting the Model Law, should be aware of the distinction between provisions that are of international application and the domestic modifications, which are only applicable in Zimbabwe.

Article 9 of the Model Law, as it applies to Zimbabwe, sets out a list of interim measures that the High Court can order, including an order securing the amount in dispute or the costs of the arbitral proceedings. See Dominion Trading FZ-LLC v Victoria Foods (Pvt) Ltd 2016 (2) ZLR 180 (H).

Moreover, where an arbitral tribunal has not yet been appointed and the matter is urgent, under Article 9(3)(a) of the Model Law as it applies to Zimbabwe, a party can apply to the High Court for interim measures. See Sakunda Energy (Pvt) Ltd v Barep Investments (Pvt) Ltd 2014 (2) ZLR 847 (H); and Northern Farming (Pvt) Ltd v Verga Merchants (Pvt) Ltd 2013 (2) ZLR 343. This means that the court is only authorised to intervene in limited instances set out in Article 9 of the Model Law. See Mostamai (Pvt) Ltd v Gwanda Rural District Council & Others 2020 (2) ZLR 789 (S).

Article 9(2) of the Model Law, as it applies to Zimbabwe, enumerates the interim measures that may be granted in Zimbabwe:

• an order for the preservation, interim custody or sale of any goods that are the subject matter of the dispute;
• an order securing the amount in dispute or the costs of the arbitral proceedings;
• an interdict or other interim order; and
• any other award to ensure that any award that may be made in the arbitral proceedings is not rendered ineffectual.

Under Article 10(2) of the Model Law, where a party to the arbitral proceedings has no place of business or habitual residence, and there is no agreement as to the number of arbitrators, there should only be one arbitrator. See Twynam Agricultural Group (Pvt) Ltd & Others v Tarisiro Mining Investments (Pvt) Ltd & Another HH 405–16.

Under Article 15 of the Model Law as it applies to Zimbabwe, unless the parties to the dispute agree otherwise, repetition of hearings is mandatory where a substitute arbitrator is appointed. In Zimbabwe, a substitute arbitrator is divested of authority to amend, vary or supplement and earlier decision or award by another arbitrator. See Zesa Holdings (Pvt) Ltd v Utah 2018 (1) ZLR 593 (S).

Article 19 of the Model Law, as it applies to Zimbabwe, provides that witnesses giving evidence – and every other person appearing before an arbitral tribunal – are granted the same privileges and immunities as witnesses and legal practitioners appearing before a court of law.

Under Article 24 of the Model Law as it applies to Zimbabwe, a party to the proceedings may appear or act in person or be represented by another person of their choice. See ZAOGA v Mashonganyika 2018 (2) ZLR 74 (S).

Article 25 of the Model Law, as it applies to Zimbabwe, deals with the concept of want of prosecution in arbitral proceedings in respect of which an arbitral tribunal has discretion to dismiss the claim or give directions, with or without the conditions for rapid determination of the claim. See Stonewell Searches (Pvt) Ltd v Stone Holdings (Pvt) Ltd & Others 2020 (1) ZLR 250 (H) and Stonewell Searches (Pvt) Ltd v Stone Holdings (Pvt) Ltd & Others 2021 (1) ZLR 437 (S).

Article 27 of the Model Law, as it applies to Zimbabwe, is a modified provision dealing with court assistance in taking evidence. See “The High Court’s Jurisdiction in Taking Evidence in Arbitral Proceedings” (2022), by Prince Kanokanga, in Midlands State University Law Review Special Issue, pp 56–77.

Under Article 31(5) of the Model Law, as it applies to Zimbabwe, an arbitral tribunal is empowered to fix and allocate the legal and other expenses of the parties, the fees and expenses of the arbitral tribunal and other expenses related to the arbitral proceedings. See San He Mining Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd v ZIMASCO (Pvt) Ltd & Another HH 28-24.

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, an arbitral tribunal under Article 31(6) of the Model Law, as it applies to Zimbabwe, has discretion to award interest at such rate, and on such sum and for such period, as may be specified in the award. See Henks Construction (Pvt) Ltd v Zimbabwe Defence (Pvt) Ltd 1998 (1) ZLR 49 (SC).

Article 31(7) of the Model Law, as it applies to Zimbabwe, specifies the various types of arbitral awards that an arbitral tribunal can grant with the consent of the parties, including an interim award, interlocutory award and partial award. See Zimbabwe Electricity Transmission and Distribution Company (Pvt) Ltd v Masawi & Another 2020 (1) ZLR 1296 (H).

Lastly, Articles 34(5) and 36(3) of the Model Law in Zimbabwe are avoidance of doubt provisions, in respect of which an arbitral award may be found to be in conflict with the public policy of Zimbabwe. See UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration: A Commentary on the Zimbabwean Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15], by Davison Kanokanga and Prince Kanokanga (Juta & Co, Cape Town), pp 405–411.

There have been no changes to the national arbitration law in Zimbabwe, nor is there any pending legislation that may change the arbitration landscape in Zimbabwe. The last amendments or modifications were effected by the General Law Amendment (No 2) Act, 2002.

Under Zimbabwean law, an arbitration agreement must be made in writing to be enforceable. This requirement is satisfied under the laws of Zimbabwe where the parties sign the agreement or there is an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams or other means of communication that provides a record of the agreement between the parties. See Tel-One (Pvt) Ltd v Capital Insurance Brokers (Pvt) Ltd 2016 (1) ZLR 18 (H).

Under Zimbabwean law, the courts will enforce an arbitration agreement if the parties clearly and unequivocally agree to arbitration. See Chimedza v City of Harare & Others 2020 (1) ZLR 282 (H) and Jimbata (Pvt) Ltd v Zimbabwe Mining Development & Another SC 2-23.

Section 4(2) of the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15] specifies the matters that cannot be referred to arbitration as follows.

• Agreements contrary to public policy.
• Disputes that, under any law, may not be determined by arbitration.
• Criminal matters.
• Matrimonial matters or matters relating to status, unless the leave of the High Court has been sought and granted. See “Matrimonial Arbitration in Zimbabwe: An Analysis of Section 4(2)(d) of the Arbitration Act” [Chapter 7:15] (2022), by Prince Kanokanga, in University of Zimbabwe Students Law Review, pp 43–73.
• Matters affecting the interests of minors or an individual lacking legal capacity, unless leave of the High Court has been sought and granted.

Prior to 10 December 2019, under Section 4(f) of the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15], consumer disputes were not arbitrable unless the consumer had, by means of a separate agreement, consented to the arbitration. Under Section 60 of the Consumer Protection Act [Chapter 14:14], consumer disputes can be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15].

The Zimbabwean courts have adopted a pro-arbitration stance towards the enforcement of arbitration agreements and recognise an arbitration agreement as a separate and distinct agreement within a contract. The courts generally follow the principle of party autonomy. Where the parties to the contract have not expressly chosen the law governing the arbitration agreement, Zimbabwean Courts will apply conflict of laws principles to determine the applicable law.

With respect to enforcement, the general trend in the Zimbabwean courts has been to give effect to the intention of the parties to resolve their disputes by way of arbitration unless the arbitration agreement is null, void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. See Waste Management Services (Pvt) Ltd v City of Harare 2000 (1) ZLR 172 (H). However, for the court to enforce an arbitration agreement, a party has to make a request to the court for stay of proceedings, and if there is no request for stay of proceedings and referral to arbitration, the court will generally have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. See Recoy Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Tarcon (Pvt) Ltd 2011 (2) ZLR 65 (H).

Under Zimbabwean law, and prior to the adoption of the Model Law, the courts have held that an arbitration clause may still be valid even if the rest of the contract in which it is contained is invalid. See Scriven Bros v Rhodesian Hides & Produce Co Ltd 1943 AD 393.

Article 16(1) of the Model Law was adopted into Zimbabwe law through the enactment of the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15]. As a result, the doctrine of separability is a part of Zimbabwean law. See Chartpril Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd & Another v Elnour United Engineering Group (Pvt) Ltd & Another HH 602–21.

The Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15] does not limit the party’s autonomy to select arbitrators in Zimbabwe.

Article 11 of the Model Law provides a default procedure for the appointment of arbitrators. See Chiyayi & Others v Baxter Paints (Pvt) Ltd & Another HH 325–22. It applies in situations where the parties fail to agree on the procedure and where an arbitration agreement does not provide a method for selecting arbitrators. See Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority v Bikita Minerals (Pvt) Ltd 2001 (1) ZLR 438 (H).

The default procedure in Article 11 of the Model Law also applies to multiparty arbitrations in Zimbabwe.

The Zimbabwe courts will only intervene in the selection of arbitrators where:

• the appointment procedure agreed upon by the parties fails;
• the parties or the two nominated arbitrators fail to agree; or
• a third party including an arbitration institution fails to perform any function entrusted to it.

In such circumstances, a party is able to approach the High Court for assistance. See Powertel Communications (Pvt) Ltd v Dandemutande Investments (Pvt) Ltd HH 454-25 and Netone Cellular (Pvt) Ltd v Muchenje HH 720-25.

In Stewart v City of Harare 1984 (2) ZLR 72 (HC), it was held that when seeking the court’s intervention in the selection of arbitrators, it is advisable for the party making the application to furnish the court with the proposed names of the arbitrators and the names of the persons who may have already been considered and rejected by the parties, if any, together with a short curriculum vitae (CV) that sets out the proposed arbitrator’s experience, skills and qualifications.

In Zimbabwe, the grounds and procedure for the removal of arbitrators are governed by Articles 12–14 of the Model Law. For instance, an arbitrator may be challenged when he or she does not satisfy the qualifications or requirements agreed upon by the parties. See Pomelo Mining (Pvt) Ltd v Annadale Trust & Another 2019 (1) ZLR 119 (H). Furthermore, there may be reasonable grounds to doubt the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence.

An arbitrator may be removed where he or she has become de facto (factual inability) or de jure (legal incapacity) unable to perform their duty, and/or where the arbitrator unjustifiably delays the performance of their duties.

Under Article 12 of the Model Law, an arbitrator must be independent and impartial, and is required to disclose any circumstances that may give rise to justifiable doubts as to their independence or independence. This is a continuing obligation throughout the proceedings. See Econet Wireless (Pvt) Ltd v Tendayi 2020 (1) ZLR 915 (S).

The principle of competence-competence is applicable in Zimbabwe. Under Article 16(1), an arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement.

Under Article 16 of the Model Law, the High Court can intervene where an arbitral tribunal has made a determination/decision on a preliminary question as to jurisdiction. The High Court may also intervene under Article 16 of the Model Law on a decision or determination rendered by an arbitral tribunal that it is exceeding the scope of its authority.

Under Article 16 of the Model Law, the right to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal is granted only once the tribunal has made a ruling on his or her determination on jurisdiction. In Gumbo v The Gas Boys (Pvt) Ltd HH 194-22, it was held to be illogical for an arbitral tribunal to proceed to hear the merits of a case only to later rule that he or she had no jurisdiction to do so.

The deadline of 30 days for bringing a review to the High Court on the issue of jurisdiction applies when the arbitral tribunal rules on jurisdiction as a preliminary question. See Chinhoyi Municipality v Mangwana & Partners & Another 2016 (2) ZLR 42 (H). Where a party does not bring a review under Article 16(3) of the Model law, it is deemed to have acquiesced to the decision or determination on jurisdiction. See Zimbabwe Cricket v Harare Sports Club & Another SC 27-22.

In Zimbabwe, arbitral proceedings do not in themselves fall within the scope of judicial review. The question of admissibility, which is related to the claim, and the question of jurisdiction, which is concerned with the power of the tribunal, are considered de novo in Zimbabwe.

Under Zimbabwean law, the courts will generally stay proceedings and refer a matter to arbitration, unless the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.

The Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15] does not address the issue of third parties who are not a party to an arbitration agreement nor signatories to the contract containing the arbitration agreement. Notwithstanding the fact that the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15], which incorporated the Model Law in Zimbabwe, does not address the issue of third parties, the non-consensual theory of law appears to have been adopted in Zimbabwe. It includes the alter ego principle (group of companies), and the principles of estoppel and succession.

In terms of the non-consensual theory, the concept of piercing the corporate veil is regarded as being applicable in arbitration. In StarAfrica Corporation Ltd v Zimbabwe Sugar Refinery Workers Union 2021 (1) ZLR 818 (S), the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe upheld a decision by an arbitrator piecing the corporate veil.

Article 31(7) of the Model Law, as it applies to Zimbabwe, is a modified provision that sets out the different types of arbitral awards that an arbitral tribunal in Zimbabwe can make. This includes interim, interlocutory and partial awards. See Zimbabwe Electricity Transmission and Distribution Company (Pvt) Ltd v Masawi & Another 2020 (1) ZLR 1296 (H). These awards are accorded their appropriate status.

Under Zimbabwean law, the court’s role in arbitration is limited. The supportive role of the court with regard to preliminary or interim relief in arbitral proceedings in Zimbabwe is provided for in Articles 9 and 17 of the Model Law. The types of interim measures that are permitted include:

• an order for the preservation, interim custody or sale of any goods that are the subject matter of the dispute;
• an order securing the amount in dispute;
• an order securing the costs of the arbitral proceedings (including the deposit in respect of the fees and costs of the arbitration); and
• any other order to ensure that any award that may be made in the arbitral proceedings is not rendered ineffectual.

The High Court of Zimbabwe generally will not grant preliminary or interim relief where:

• the arbitral tribunal has not yet been appointed and the matter is urgent;
• the arbitral tribunal is not competent to grant the order; or
• the urgency of the matter makes it impracticable to seek such preliminary or interim relief from the arbitral tribunal.

The High Court of Zimbabwe may grant preliminary or interim relief in support of arbitration proceedings seated outside of Zimbabwe.

The Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15] does not provide for emergency arbitration. Urgent relief must therefore be sought either from the arbitral tribunal once constituted or directly from the High Court.

Zimbabwean law allows both courts and arbitral tribunals to order security for costs. Furthermore, the courts may also make an order for a deposit in respect of the fees and costs of the arbitration.

Subject to the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15], the parties are free to agree on the procedure to be followed by the arbitral tribunal in conducting the proceedings. See Walenn Holdings (Pvt) Ltd v Lloyd & Another 1996 (2) ZLR 383 (H). The High Court in City of Harare v Univern Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd & Another HH 346-23 cautioned parties on the need for good faith in agreeing on the rules or procedure of the proceedings, and to frame, if possible, the terms in elaborate terms.

Zimbabwean law does not prescribe any rigid procedural steps for arbitration. The procedural steps are generally set out in the arbitration agreement on the institutional rules.

Under Article 12 of the Model Law, arbitrators in Zimbabwe are required to be independent and impartial. Furthermore, throughout the arbitral proceedings, an arbitral tribunal has an ongoing duty to disclose any circumstances that are likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their independence or impartiality.

Under Article 14 of the Model Law, arbitrators have a duty to conduct the proceedings with reasonable dispatch. Article 18 of the Model Law requires arbitrators to treat the parties with equality and to be given a full opportunity to present their cases.

Under Article 24(1) of the Model Law, where a party requests an oral hearing, the tribunal is required to hold such hearing. The arbitrator has a duty to ensure that parties are given sufficient advance notice of any hearing or of any meeting. See Makonye v Ramodimoosi & Others 2014 (1) ZLR 111 (H).

In Zimbabwe, an arbitrator has a duty to determine a dispute and render a decision based on the terms of reference. See Delta Operations (Pvt) Ltd v Origen Corporation (Pvt) Ltd 2007 (2) ZLR 81 (S). An arbitrator cannot come up with his or her own terms of reference. See Alliance Insurance Ltd v Imperial Plastics (Pvt) Ltd & Another 2017 (1) ZLR 459 (S).

In addition, arbitrators have the power to set up procedural meetings and organise the arbitral proceedings, administrative support for the arbitral tribunal, means of communication between the parties and interim measures where the parties fail to agree.

Article 24(4) of the Model law, as it applies to Zimbabwe, provides that at any hearing or meeting of the arbitral tribunal seated in Zimbabwe, a party to the arbitral proceedings may appear or act in person or be represented by another other person of their choice. See ZAOGA v Mashonganyika 2018 (2) ZLR 74 (S). This allows any person (including a foreign representative) to represent a party in arbitral proceedings in Zimbabwe. The Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15] does not set out any particular qualifications or other requirements for the representation of parties in Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwean law does not provide a detailed statutory framework governing the collection and submission of evidence. The collection and submission of evidence in arbitral proceedings in Zimbabwe is generally agreed upon by the parties or set out in the rules of the appointing authority – or, in the absence of any agreement of rules, at the discretion of the arbitral tribunal.

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, an arbitral tribunal pursuant to Article 19(2) of the Model Law has the power to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of any evidence. See Giya v Ribi Trading 2014 (1) ZLR 103 (H). In Zimbabwe, parties who have chosen arbitration are not bound by the strict evidential rules applied by the courts.

Article 27 of the Model Law confers power on an arbitral tribunal to issue a subpoena to compel the attendance of a witness before an arbitral tribunal, or to produce documents. However, as a general rule, an arbitral tribunal requires the assistance of the High Court. See “The High Court’s Jurisdiction in Taking Evidence in Arbitral Proceedings” (2022), by Prince Kanokanga, in Midlands State University Law Review Special Issue, pp 56–77.

In Zimbabwe, arbitration proceedings are generally considered confidential. However, confidentiality is not absolute. Where a party seeks to either set aside the arbitral award or to have the award recognised and enforced, the arbitral record of proceedings is generally an annexure to the court papers and therefore a part of the court record, which is open to inspection, thereby potentially limiting confidentiality to that extent.

Under Article 31 of the Model Law, an arbitral award rendered in an arbitration seated in Zimbabwe must satisfy the following formal requirements.

• It must be in writing and signed by the arbitrator. In proceedings with more than one arbitrator, it should contain the signatures of the majority of the members of the arbitral tribunal, and if for any reason a signature is omitted, the reasons should be provided.
• The reasons for the award should be given unless the parties have agreed that this is not required. See Soft Drinks Manufacturing Employers Association v Soft Drinks Manufacturing Workers Union & Another 2015 (2) ZLR 513 (H).
• The date on which the award was rendered and the seat of arbitration should be specified.

There are no statutory time limits on the delivery of an award in Zimbabwe. Issues to do with time limits generally arise from the applicable institution’s rules – including procedural rules. An award is deemed to have been received by a party in Zimbabwe when it has been set or delivered to the recipient. See Willoughby’s Investments (Pvt) Ltd v Peruke Investments (Pvt) Ltd & Another 2014 (1) ZLR 501 (H).

The Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15] in Zimbabwe does not prescribe any limitations on the types of remedies that an arbitral tribunal may award. Generally, in Zimbabwe an arbitral tribunal has broad discretion and may grant any relief or remedy that is available under the substantive law governing the dispute, subject to public policy and arbitrability considerations in Zimbabwe.

In Zimbabwe, parties have the autonomy to decide on issues relating to the recovery of interest and legal costs. In the absence of an agreement by the parties, the costs and expenses of an arbitration, including the legal and other expenses of the parties, the fees and expenses of the arbitral tribunal and other expenses related to the arbitral tribunal, are generally fixed and allocated by the arbitrator in his or her award.

Where an arbitral award does not deal with the issue of costs, the general position in Zimbabwe is that each party bears its own legal costs and other expenses, and the parties to the proceedings are jointly liable in equal share to pay the fees and expenses of the arbitral tribunal and any other expenses related to the arbitration.

Furthermore, an arbitral tribunal under Article 31(6) of the Model Law, as it applies to Zimbabwe, has discretion to award interest at such rate, and on such sum and for such period, as may be specified in the award. See Henks Construction (Pvt) Ltd v Zimbabwe Defence (Pvt) Ltd 1998 (1) ZLR 49 (SC).

The Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15], which applies to both domestic and international arbitration, recognises arbitration as final and binding in Zimbabwe. As a result, under Zimbabwean law an arbitral award cannot be appealed against – and neither can one institute review proceedings. See Ropa v Reosmart Investments (Pvt) Ltd & Another 2006 (2) ZLR 283 (S).

A party aggrieved by an award is not without recourse. See TN Harlequin Luxaire Ltd & Another v Quest Motors Manufacturing (Pvt) Ltd 2019 (2) ZLR 652 (S) and Zimbabwe Manpower Development Fund v Vengesai & Another 2019 (2) ZLR 1132 (S). It may challenge an award under the limited grounds set out in Article 34 of the Model law, which can be summarised as follows:

• arbitrability;
• award in conflict with public policy;
• award was induced or effected by fraud or corruption;
• due process;
• excess of mandate;
• irregular constitution of tribunal;
• irregular procedure; and
• invalidity of the arbitration agreement.

An application to set aside an award in Zimbabwe must be made within three months from the date on which the award was received by the party wishing to have it set aside. See Courtesy Connection (Pvt) Ltd & Another v Mupamhadzi 2006 (1) ZLR 479 (H).

Section 60(8) of the Consumer Protection Act [Chapter 14:44], however, provides that any person aggrieved by the decision of the arbitrator may appeal to the High Court within 30 days.

There is nothing in the Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15] that precludes parties to international arbitration seated in Zimbabwe from agreeing to a second arbitral tribunal, such as an Award Review Tribunal (ART). In theory, parties and the legislature can enlarge the jurisdiction of the courts to accommodate appeals and reviews.

The standard of judicial review in Zimbabwe is generally deferential rather than de novo. The courts in Zimbabwe respect the principle of party autonomy and finality of arbitration. See Zimbabwe Manpower Development Fund v Vengesai & Another 2019 (3) ZLR 1132 (S). The courts will only interfere on the limited grounds set out in Article 34 and Article 36 of the Model law.

Zimbabwe is a ratified signatory to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award.

The procedure for enforcing an arbitral award, whether domestic or international, requires a formal application to the High Court. See Mandikonza & Another v Cutnal Trading (Pvt) Ltd & Others 2004 (2) ZLR 340 (H). The application is generally in the form of a chamber application. See Lowveld Rhino Trust v Dhlomo-Bhala 2020 (1) ZLR 457 (S).

The party applying for recognition and enforcement has an obligation to attach the award (if foreign, an authenticated copy) and the arbitration agreement. See Botha v Gwanda Rural District Council 2018 (1) ZLR 652 (H). Where the arbitration agreement or award is in a foreign language, an authenticated sworn translation in English is required.

The courts in Zimbabwe will generally recognise and enforce an international award as if it were a domestic award. See Transcom Sharaf Mozambique Lda v Manyame Milling Co (Pvt) Ltd 2019 (2) ZLR 102 (H). and Gwanda Rural District Council v Botha 2020 (2) ZLR 1164 (S). Where an application for the setting aside or suspension of an award has been made, the courts in Zimbabwe will generally adjourn the proceedings pending the determination of those proceedings.

In a significant number of the decisions in Zimbabwe where the courts had to make pronouncements, many of them had to do so with the public policy defence. The superior courts in Zimbabwe have now commented on the meaning of the term of public policy. See Augur Investments OU v Fairclot Investments (Pvt) Ltd & Another 2019 (1) ZLR 218 (S) and Zesa Holdings (Pvt) Ltd v Clovgate Elevator Co (Pvt) Ltd 2020 (1) ZLR 1182 (H).

The Supreme Court in Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority v Maposa 1999 (2) ZLR 452 (SC) held that decisions of courts under the 1958 New York Convention relating to public policy afford persuasive guidance in interpreting the Model Law in Zimbabwe, but in the event of a direct conflict, the public policy of Zimbabwe must prevail.

The Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15] does not specifically provide for class action or group arbitration in Zimbabwe. A class action is defined as a form of legal proceeding under the Class Actions Act [Chapter 8:17]. Arbitration proceedings in Zimbabwe do not fall within the definition of legal proceedings. See Metallon Gold Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd & Another v Gura 2016 (1) ZLR 509 (H).

Legal practitioners practising as arbitrators in Zimbabwe are bound by the ethical and professional standards designed by the appointing authority, if any, and those set out in the Legal Practitioners Act [Chapter 27:07] and the Legal Practitioners (Code of Conduct) By-Laws, 2018. Other professional persons who act as arbitrators in arbitration proceedings in Zimbabwe are governed by the codes of ethics and/or regulations applicable to their professions, or as set out by the relevant Regulatory Authority.

In Zimbabwe, there are currently no restrictions or regulations on third-party funders.

The Arbitration Act [Chapter 7:15] does not provide for the consolidation of arbitration proceedings.

In Zimbabwe, the general principle is that only the parties to the arbitration agreement or award are bound by it.