FORMER Premier Services Medical Investment (PSMI) executive director for corporate service Shingayi Mabuto has taken former employer to court demanding his exit package amounting to more than US$1 million.
Mabuto has approached the High Court seeking to register a deed of settlement concluded on April 24 last year in which PSMI undertook obligations in his favour.
The application arises from a labour dispute, for which they reached a partial settlement in an arbitral award.
Mabuto said the quantifiable portion of the unfulfilled, unregistered deed of settlement was being neglected despite being legally binding.
Following the termination of his employment with PSMI, a dispute arose concerning salary arrears, contractual benefits and terminal benefits.
To resolve the dispute, the issue was referred to arbitration and a roundtable was done, which culminated in the execution of the deed of settlement.
Keep Reading
- 4 PSMI executives nabbed
- PSMI falls on hard times, faces collapse
- PSMI decay tip of iceberg
- PSMI boss in Zacc crosshairs
The deed of settlement represented a significant breakthrough in the dispute, as it resolved a substantial portion of Mabuto’s claims.
PSMI allegedly agreed to pay US$1 100 439 in respect of salary arrears and certain contractual benefits and in addition, PSMI conceded liability in respect of pension contributions and life insurance obligations.
Mabuto submitted that the issues that remained unresolved following the execution of the deed of settlement were clearly identified and confined to specific heads of claim, namely club membership benefits, staff develop and performance bonus, medical aid and motor vehicle benefits.
It is submitted that by mutual agreement, these residual issues were referred back to the arbitrator for determination; with the referral effectively separating the dispute into two distinct components: the settled portion governed by the deed of settlement and the unresolved portion to be determined through arbitration.
Following a careful consideration of the evidence and submissions, the arbitrator issued an award on March 13, 2026 in Mabuto’s favour.
The award granted relief in respect of all the unresolved issues that had been referred back to the respondent.
PSMI appealed the award under case number LCH422/26 and the said appeal is merely confined to issues outside the deed of settlement.
Mabuto submitted that while the arbitrator referred to the deed of settlement in the narrative portion of the award, the quantified amount agreed therein was not expressly incorporated into the operative part of the award.
He said instead, the operative portion confined itself to the determination of the outstanding issues that were remitted for adjudication.
He submitted that despite the deed of settlement, the respondent failed, neglected and/or refused to honour its undertakings.
“The settlement amount remains unpaid, and the obligations assumed by the respondent have not been performed.
“The deed of settlement has not been set aside, rescinded or appealed against and continues to subsist as a valid and enforceable agreement. Its terms are clear, unequivocal and binding upon the parties.
“It is against this factual and procedural background that I now approach this honourable court seeking the registration of the deed of settlement,” he submitted.
“I submit that the respondent has never sought to challenge, rescind or set aside the deed of settlement. The deed, therefore, remains extant, operative and binding.
“Despite the affluxion of time and the absence of any lawful justification for non-performance, the respondent has not paid the agreed sum exceeding US$1 100 439, nor has it fulfilled the ancillary obligations relating to pension contributions and life insurance.
“It is further submitted that the deed of settlement is not rendered nugatory or redundant by the subsequent arbitral award.”
Mabuto submitted that the deed of settlement disposed of the bulk of the claims, while the arbitral award dealt exclusively with the residual issues that had been expressly carved out and referred back to the arbitrator for determination.
“This bifurcated approach was not accidental, but was the product of a deliberate and consensual arrangement between the parties.
“As such, the registration of the deed of settlement does not in any way conflict with, undermine or duplicate the arbitral award; rather, it complements it by ensuring that all aspects of the dispute are effectively resolved and enforceable.
“Indeed, the arbitrator himself recognised and gave effect to the deed of settlement by expressly acknowledging that it had resolved monetary claims totalling US$1 100 439.”
He said the settlement, having already been concluded, fell outside the scope of what required adjudication and it remained a standalone and binding agreement, enforceable in its own right.
Mabuto is praying that the High Court registers the deed of settlement which allows PSMI to pay.
The application is pending.