Société Pamol Plantation Ltd contre Noubissi Francis –Arrêt n 381/CIV/2009
iarb
Algeria
Pamol Plantation and Mr. Noubissi signed an MOU. Following the non-execution of the said MOU by Mr. Noubissi, Pamol Plantation solicited and obtained an order for payment of FCFA 112,000,000. Mr. Noubissi applied and obtained an award in his favor. Pamol has appealed this award.
Arbitral award was annulled. The MOU indicated that they elected to submit disputes to the Indian courts in Mundemba. Recourse to arbitration must be agreed upon by both parties to a dispute. Pamol’s failure to respond to Mr. Noubissi’s proposed arbitration indicates a lack of desire on its part to take part in this process. The fact that it did not consent to it, renders the award invalid.
Société LIBYA OIL CHAD SA contre Société GAMMA SARL –Arrêt n 02/CIV/2012
iarb
Algeria
A contract for the transport of petroleum products was concluded between GAMMA SARL and Mobil Oil Chad SA. GAMMA SARL accused its contractual partner of having breached its contractual obligations, and seized an ad hoc arbitral tribunal, which ordered Mobil Oil Chad to pay damages. An appeal has been made against this decision.
Groupe Prodicom SARL contre S.D.B.C.- SNC-B.A.T. –Arrêt n 52/CIV/2008
iarb
Algeria
Prodicom reached an agreement with SDBC. Dispute arose. SDBC sought an order from GICAM compelling Prodicom to return the SDBC goods stored in its warehouses. It also sought money kept in a joint escrow account. The Arbitral Tribunal ruled in favor of SDBC. Prodicom appealed the decision.
Wadi Al Rawda Industrial Investments
Wadi Al Rawda Industrial Investments
Algeria
Start and End Date
April 2011 - May 2013
Treaty Type
Contract
Sector
Mining
Case Decision
Settled- claimant agrees to pay 2 million USD fee to company it hired
Arbitration Center
ICC
Representative of the Respondent
undisclosed
Representative of the Claimant
undisclosed
Amount Claimed
Dispute relates to the payment of a fee to Wheatherly International plc hired by claimant to do a feasability study on mine and claimant asked govt to pay the 2 million USD
Amount Given to Arbitrators
-
Bredin, Prat et Associés, Paris, France
-
Legal Fees of Claimant
-
Total Legal Fees
-
Administrative Fees
-
Société Camerounaise d’Operations Maritimes (SOCOMAR SA) contre Société Express Transport Khalifa (Extra Khalifa) –Arrêt n 564/CIV/2013
iarb
Algeria
The Appellant and Responded signed an accommodation and representation agreement. KHALIFA’s alleged breach of the non-compete obligation, its non-payment of the debt owed to SOCOMAR, and unilateral termination of the accommodation contract, led the Appellant to seek and obtain an order for payment. Khalifa opposed the order, and the Tribunal ultimately ruled in favor of Khalifa. SOCOMAR appealed this decision.
Crédit communautaire d’Afrique contre Kamga Kamga Richard – Arrêt n 153/CIV/2007
iarb
Algeria
An account was opened by the Defendant at the Credit Communautaire d’Afrique S.A. Availing himself of the fact that he had not been given access to bank account statements which, he said, led to his bankruptcy, Mr. Kamga enlisted the services of André Youbi, an individual claiming to be a private Arbitration judge, who produced the arbitration award which is the subject of the present proceedings. Mr. Youbi ruled in favor of Mr. Kamga, ordering the Credit Communautaire d’Afrique S. to pay 82,000,000 FCFA to him in pecuniary damages. C.C.A. appealed this decision.
Application for the annulment of the award was granted. The arbitration agreement between the appellant and Kamga does not appear to be any evidence provided that it exists.
Wharic construction (pty) ltd versus Nteta and another 2004 (1) blr 67 (hc) –Misca No 599 of 2001
iarb
Algeria
The first respondent (Wharic) instituted review proceedings to set aside the award on the basis that the proceeding had been irregularly conducted, 16 months after the award.
Unless the award contained a patent error, the award should be enforced as an Order of Court.
Pan-African Minerals
Pan-African Minerals
Algeria
Start and End Date
Late 2016 - 8 March 2019
Treaty Type
-
Sector
Mining
Case Decision
Decided in favor of Investor, Claimant ordered to pay Respondent's cost for arbitration (500 000 USD) and half of its legal fees (478 000 Euros)
Arbitration Center
ICC
Representative of the Respondent
Clay Arbitration, Paris, France; Cabinet Grossman,Paris, France; Kam & Some, Burkina Faso
Representative of the Claimant
–
Amount Claimed
2.2 Billion USD (Initially estimated at 4 Billion but later reduced) - Counterclaim filed by Benin 1.25 Billion alleging that claimant got contract through corrupt means,808 million for repeated and serious breaches and 17 million for reputation damages) tribunal dismissed all
Amount Given to Arbitrators
Claimant ordered to pay Respondent's share of arbitration costs: 500 000USD, which means total cost are 1 million. Not known how much is admin and how much is for arbitrators
Bredin, Prat et Associés, Paris, France
Not Specified
Legal Fees of Claimant
Not Known
Total Legal Fees
not known
Administrative Fees
-
Silverstone [pty] limited, and Sapro [pty] limited versus lobatse clay works tptyl limited – civil appeal no.42 of 1995
iarb
Algeria
A jurisdiction case; whether or not a company in Botswana if it has foreign shareholder only with an administrative center abroad but the company is registered and incorporated in Botswana.
The Court granted an application for an attachment to confirm jurisdiction so as to render an arbitral award enforceable.
North west district council versus Gerrit Herman vlug & Star wars enterprises (pty) ltd–MAHFT-000225-11, date :22nd February 2013
iarb
Algeria
Plaintiff (Fanz) sued Defendant (KSUDB), in a Kano high court, claiming against it N6, 922,742.00 being damages for a breach of an agreement. Both parties agreed to take case to an arbitrator. Arbitrator made an award in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant made an application to set aside the award. Application rejected. Whether his decision was right or wrong is not for this court to adjudication upon since the high court is not a court of Appeal over arbitration proceedings. An award cannot set aside in an action commenced by a writ, a fortiori; it cannot be set aside on a counter claim. So the trial Judge took the Plaintiff’s application to enforce the arbitrator’s award. The defendant appealed. Appeal dismissed because no grounds of appeal in support of the appeal against the order refusing to set aside the award. The defendant has appealed to the Supreme Court against this judgment.
The proper thing counsel should have done was to have argued the appeal by reference to the issues identified and no longer by reference the grounds which are supposed to have been subsumed under one or other of the issues arising for determination. The decision of the Kano State high court staying proceedings pending the decision of the arbitration is valid rightly or wrongly. No protest of any kind as to the authority of the arbitrator to act in the matter submitted to him. So Defendant couldn’t challenge authority of the arbitrator to take the reference. The Court of Appeal was in error in holding that there were no grounds of appeal before it against the order of the trial court refusing to set aside the arbitrator’s award. An undue delay in bringing an application under section 12(2) of the law to set aside an award can never militate against the application; it was the Appellant’s ground which has been up hold.