Baker Marine Nigeria Limited vs Chevron Nigeria Limited - (2006) LPELR-715(SC)-Suit No: SC.374/2001
iarb
Algeria
Consequent upon a dispute between the Appellant and the Respondent, redress was sought at the Arbitral Tribunal. One of the terms of agreement was that Nigerian Law would govern the substantive contract. The said contract excluded the award of punitive damages. However, the tribunal awarded punitive damages. The issue that then arose was whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the decision of the Federal High Court setting aside the arbitral award made in favour of the appellant.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts. Appeal dismissed with costs awarded to the Respondents because it lacked substance and merit. An error on the face of an award may justify its setting aside.
Da Cunha Do Rego vs Beerwinkel t/a JC Builders – Case no SA 36/2010 (2012)
iarb
Algeria
This matter arises from a building contract entered by the appellant Dr. Anibal Da Cunha do Rogo & the respondent, JC Beerwinkel trading. A dispute arose between these parties as to monies allegedly owed by the appellant to the respondent and that dispute was submitted to arbitration. Mr.B successfully applied to court to have the resultant arbitration award made an order of court. Dr. Da Rego now appeals against the whole of the judgment and order made in the High Court.
Appeal is dismissed. The appellant’s heads of argument on appeal is granted. The appellant’s argument that the High Court erred in applying the rule that the litigant may not delay the administration of justice by insisting on chosen counsel without regard to the border context of the dispute between the parties & in particular, the delays that had beleaguered the arbitration, cannot be upheld. Given the application for the postponed, the appellant has not established that the High Court judge erred either on the law or the facts in refusing the application. The appellant’s argument that the arbitration could not be conducted because the conditions precedent set out in clause 26 of the building contract had not been met cannot be sustained. Plus the appellant has not established that the arbitration was tainted by a material irregularity.
Massilia Limited (In Voluntary Liquidation) vs. 1. Golf Development International Holdings Limited 2. Island Projects Limited 3. River Club Limited 4. Liberalis Limited [2014] SCJ 188, Supreme Court of Mauritius
iarb
Algeria
This application was made to set aside the interim order given by the Arbitral tribunal not to sell, charge and dispose portion of land to Massila, pending the determination of the validity of the arbitration agreement by the Mauritius Supreme Court. This was following the tribunals decision to stay proceeding until the decision of the Supreme Court (Concurrent proceeding). Applicant contends that an interim order may be issued only by the court as per section 6 and 23 (1) (a) of the IAA.
Trikona Advisers Limited vs. Sachsenfonds Asset Management GMBH [2011] SCJ 440A
iarb
Algeria
This matter arose between a applicant – the investment adviser and Respondent, who is the promoter of two investment funds for investing in real property in India The dispute arose in a multi-jurisdictional real estate investment structure, where a parallel proceeding of winding up and arbitration was held in Mauritius and Singapore respectively. Applicant requested the Mauritius Court to determine that the on-going arbitration be declared null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed in accordance with section 5 (3) IAA.
The Mauritius Commercial Bank Ltd vs. 1. UBS AG. Singapore Branch 2. UBS AG, 2015 SCJ 307, Supreme Court of Mauritius.
iarb
Algeria
The dispute arises out of an agreement entered between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 (UBS) the Singapore Branch of the defendant No. 2, a Swiss international banking Corporation. Under the agreement the plaintiff agreed to participate with UBS, the lender of record, in a USD 100M secured term loan facility to Ammalay International Pte Ltd (Ammalay). Defendant No. 2 has argued that ex facie the facts pleaded in the plaint, the plaintiff’s claim is in relation to contractual or pre-contractual rights, obligations or liabilities arising in connection with the Facility Agreement. It is therefore a dispute arising “out of or in connection with the Facility Agreement”. As such, the issue has to be resolved by arbitration in Singapore and the Supreme Court in Mauritius does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present matter. Plaintiff maintains that the present court is the proper forum and has jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter.
Stayed proceeding, pending the determination of the adjudicating court under Section 5 and 13 (1) (2) of IAA
Mall of Mont Choisy Limited vs. 1. Pick ‘N Pay Retailers (Proprietary) Limited 2. Red Apple Retail Company Limited 3. Red Apple (Mont Choisy) Limited [2015] SCJ 10, Supreme Court of Mauritius
iarb
Algeria
Mall of Mont Choisy Limited and Respondent 1 entered into an agreement to develop and lease a supermarket in a shopping center. Applicant argues that the parties are not bound by arbitration agreement, as the lease agreement which was signed by one of the directors and undated was not a formal agreement. Respondents contend that the applicant is bound by the arbitration agreement and moved the Commercial Court to refer to the designated judge of the supreme court, pursuant with section 5 of the International Arbitration Act 2013 (IAA).
Stayed Proceeding and referred to Arbitral tribunal to decide on its competence-competence.
1. Liberalis Limited 2. River Club Company Limited Vs 1. Golf Development International Holdings Ltd, SCJ 211 SCR No. 107600 2. Island Projects Ltd. 3. Massilia Limited (in voluntary liquidation) [2013]
iarb
Algeria
This is an application under section 20(7) of the International Arbitration Act (No. 37 of 2008) for an order setting aside the ruling of an arbitrator and declaring the relevant arbitration agreement null and void for four reasons: (i) alleged wrongful recourse to domestic law; (ii) alleged failure to apply South African law; (iii) arbitration agreement was not lawfully ratified by the resolution of the Board of Directors of the Respondent No. 1.; (iv) applicants’ consent to the arbitration agreement had been vitiated by “dol”. This dispute arises from a “compromis” which referred for arbitration certain disputes in relation to an Integrated Resorts Scheme (IRS) project.
1. Barnwell Enterprises Ltd (as successor-in-title to Shivaan Enterprises Ltd) 2. Rishi Ltd 3. Alok Ltd 4. GNR Reddy VS. ECP Africa FII Investments LLC [2013] SCJ 327, Supreme Court of Mauritius
iarb
Algeria
The matter came before this Court for the respondent and co-respondent to show cause why the interim order preventing the respondent from enforcing or exercising any rights or purported rights under or derived from the Share Pledge Agreement, subscribed by the applicants as pledgors, and/or the Notice of Enforcement should not be made interlocutory, enlarged, discharged or otherwise dealt with, pending the final determination of the arbitration proceedings before the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA).
In line with Section 23 (5) IAA, the court ordered an interim award from 26 July 2013 until 3 August 2013, after which the interim order will lapse and Applicant will have sufficient time to request the tribunal for an interim order.
Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings Vs. I. Unitech Limited II. Burley Holdings Limited and Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings Vs. Arsanovia Limited [2014] SCJ 100, Supreme Court of Mauritius
iarb
Algeria
The two consolidated applications concern the request to recognize and execute in Mauritius a foreign Awards of the issued by a tribunal under London Court of Arbitration (LCIA). Respondent contends that enforcement would be in violation of (i) the Constitution of Mauritius; (ii) Article V (1) (c) of the New York Convention (Jurisdictional issue); and (iii) Article V (2) (b) of the New York Convention (public policy).
Bauman, Hinde And Company LTD vs David Whitehead & Sons (Mw) LTD - Civil Case No. 2107 (1996)
iarb
Algeria
This is an application by the judgment debtor (David Whitehead) & to set aside registration of an arbitration award which was registered under an order ex parte saying within the stipulated time, the judgment debtor could apply for setting aside the registration. The order also indicated that the judgment creditor, Bauman, Hinde & Co. Ltd., should not issue execution until the application to set aside the registration is disposed of.
When there is no agreement to submit to arbitration, arbitrators have no authority to hold the arbitration. Their award cannot therefore be enforced. The Liverpool Association, it is said, had no jurisdiction to arbitrate since there was no agreement for arbitration. The contract had only been signed by the judgment creditor after the judgment creditor had executed it. The judgment debtor, who received the copy executed by the judgment creditor, has not executed it. It was not signed by the judgment debtor. The contract is, therefore, it is urged, not valid by the law in which it was made. The reasonable thing to do in this matter is to retain the registration of the award. It is further ordered that execution on the award be stayed till the application to enforce the award is determined. This will enable the judgment creditor to apply by action for enforcement of the award to which application the judgment debtor can raise the defenses that he is raising to the registration.