iarb

U&M Mining Zambia Ltd, a Zambian subsidiary of a Brazilian company, operated a mine for Konkola Copper Mines plc, the owner of the mine and a Zambian subsidiary of UK-listed Vedanta Resources plc. The parties entered into an agreement, which was governed by Zambian law, and provided for disputes to be resolved by LCIA arbitration with the “place” of arbitration in London. The Agreement also provided for the Zambian courts to have exclusive jurisdiction. The respondents terminated the agreement and obtained an ex parte interim order from the High Court of Zambia requiring U&M to vacate the mine immediately and hand over certain equipment. U&M commenced LCIA arbitration in London and subsequently made a without notice application to the English High Court and obtained an anti-suit injunction restraining Konkola from taking any further steps in the Zambian courts. The courts identified the issues and held: Seat: the “place” of arbitration was the seat of arbitration; Whether the English courts had exclusive jurisdiction to grant interim remedies.

An appeal against decision of High Court, staying proceeding before it & referring the matter to arbitration. Appellant & respondent entered into a marketing license agreement in which the appellant was to, interalia, sell the respondent’s products & conduct ancillary business at the respondent’s filling station. Respondent terminated the Agreement without notice, so appellant commenced proceedings in the High Court. But before trial, the respondent applied for stay of proceeding & reference of the matter to arbitration; the judge accepted both.

An appeal against the High court judge, setting aside an arbitral award made by an arbitral tribunal by believing it was in breach of public policy, the procedure and the law of Zambia; also the arbitral award is an excess of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The arbitral tribunal was constituted to consider the interpretation of a paragraph in the agreement document referred to as the “Disputed Clause”. Prior to the awarding of the Arbitral Award the Chairman accepted an appointment to serve as a member of another Tribunal (as co-arbitrator), with one counsel that represented the defendant in this case. This was perceived to have had an influence on the decision of the Tribunal.

The appellants brought a petition in the High Court to challenge the decision of the respondent to acquire compulsorily their land. The petition was unsuccessful and so this appeal. It’s inadmissible to construe the word “unlimited” vacue in and then to proceed to find that a law allegedly limiting of the Courts is unconstitutional. The expression “unlimited jurisdiction” should not be confused with the powers of the High Court and the various laws. However the High Court is not exempts from adjudicating in accordance with the law including complying with procedural requirement as well as substantive limitations. In the absence of an order of interlocutory injunction, no other useful orders could have been made against the state in order to affect a suspension of the compulsory acquisition pending trial and, in case of breach, to exact compliance. The Lands Acquisition Act is not part of the Constitution & is, on the contrary, simply a law envisaged under the Constitution for depriving persons of their fundamental rights of owning property. Contrary to the appellants’ submission, the issue of compensation which has not been litigated relates to a remedy on new principles of assessment and the amendments effected to the land Acquisition Act. The acquisition here was not unlawful for want of a prior tender of compensation. Undoubtedly this case raised constitutional issues of general importance, & the practice in this court has been to depart from the general rule of costs following the event when the litigation has had a significant contribution of public importance particularly on issues which come before the court for the first time.