iarb

The main issue is to find that an arbitrator’s decision is contrary to public policy. The appellant (Beazley) was the liquidator of a construction company which had contracted to build a dam for the second respondent, who had cancelled the contract. The first respondent was an arbitrator and decided in favor of the second appellant by validating the cancellation. The High Court upheld the arbitrator’s decision. An appeal has been made by the liquidator.

The case is about a disagreement on the amount of money to be paid to the workers (respondents) by the appellant (city of Harare); workers demanded for 330 percent salary increase but they were awarded 120 percent. So the city of Harare appealed to set aside the arbitral award which was in favor of the respondent.

The case deals with whether the award is to be understood in its literal sense or in the sense which any judgment or order of court must be understood. There is an ambiguity in an award, so the court is entitled to interpret the award or any of its constitutive words/phrases, for the purpose of clarifying what he ordered to be done. No allegations that the arbitrator made a mistake. Parties differ only in their interpretation of it. The non-applicability of the duplum rule in the present case would result in the violation of a fundamental principle of the law. It’s on this basis that the respondent’s opposition to the application would be justified. The public policy defense applies.

The applicant (Durco) engaged the service of a broking company Croplink, to dispose of its maize on the Zimbabwe Commodity Exchange (Zimace). The respondent (Dajen) was at the same time desirous of procuring substantial quantities of maize for its milling activities; it engaged the services of Atrax to act on its behalf. A contract was concluded by Croplink & Atrax in terms of which Durco sold to Dajen. The latter refused to take delivery of the maize. As a consequence dispute arose between Durco & Dajen & was referred to arbitration. Dajen was found not liable.

The applicant (FSI) entered into an agreement of sale with first respondent (RTZ); however FSI claims that RTZ had breached certain of the express warranties, so they decided to take the case to an arbitrator. Then FSI sought to have arbitration proceedings set aside on the basis that the arbitrator had misconducted the proceedings because the arbitrator wanted to hear evidences/arguments of both parties separately. No objection rose. When one party asked to listen to the other’s representative argument, the arbitrator was willing to arrange a meeting but then the party’s representative decided it was unnecessary. The submissions & argument raised by each party were made known to the other party, which was given an opportunity to respond.

Respondent (Maposa) sought an order form the High Court to enforce an arbitral award. The appellant (ZESA) countered with a claim to have the award declared null and void & set aside. The judge dismissed both case. So ZESA noted an appeal& Maposa cross appealed.