ENFORCING FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS IN TANZANIAN COURTS
ENFORCING FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS IN TANZANIAN COURTS
It is undeniable that foreign arbitral awards can be of elephantine extent. A case in point is the recent $185 million award issued by a tribunal at the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in favour of Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) against Tanzania for breaching an energy contract.
It is undeniable that foreign arbitral awards can be of elephantine extent. A case in point is the recent $185 million award issued by a tribunal at the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) in favour of Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) against Tanzania for breaching an energy contract.
And then there is the $36.3 million arbitral award obtained in July 2010 by Mr. Hermanus Steyn against the Tanzanian government that is still reverberating in the international arbitration community.
Evidently, obtaining an arbitral award may not be the end of the road to redress contractual or other wrongdoings of the government. Moreover, unlike court judgements, arbitral awards are not directly enforceable.
In terms of the legal framework, the Geneva Protocol on Arbitration Clauses 1923, the Geneva Convention on Execution of Foreign Awards 1927, the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958, the ICSID Convention 1965, and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) Convention 1985 as well as bilateral investment treaties entered into with Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, etc. provide the basis for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Tanzania.
Although Tanzania is a party to the above-mentioned Conventions and treaties, the country’s distinctly outmoded Arbitration Act, Cap 15 incorporates only the Geneva Protocol and the Geneva Convention.
The New York Convention, the ICSID Convention, the MIGA Convention and bilateral investment treaties—all of which have superseded the Geneva Protocol and the Geneva Convention—are yet to be incorporated into Tanzanian domestic law.
In this context, can the provisions of the unincorporated Conventions and treaties be enforced in Tanzania?
The specific provisions that govern the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards are found in sections 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 of the Arbitration Act.
The High Court of Tanzania is the only forum for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Section 17 mandates that an arbitral award filed in the High Court “shall”, if not remitted or set aside, be enforceable as it were a decree of the High Court.
Indeed, in Dowans v. TANESCO Misc. Civil Case No. 8 of 2011, the Court of Appeal of Tanzania upheld the High Court’s decision that a foreign arbitral award issued under the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules of Arbitration was enforceable in Tanzania.
However, these Rules are not incorporated into Tanzanian domestic law. Thus, the question posed earlier is answered in the affirmative.
Moreover, Article 54 of the ICSID Convention, ratified by Tanzania, imposes on Tanzania the obligation to automatically ‘recognize’ and ‘enforce’ an award issued in an ICSID arbitration, even though matters are different when it comes to ‘execution’ of ICSID awards as deference is made to Tanzanian domestic procedures and rules relating to execution.
Instructively, due to major lacunae in the Arbitration Act, the legal framework for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Tanzania also includes the Civil Procedure Code, Cap 33 (“the CPC”).
The application for recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral award should be submitted as a petition; this is preceded by the filing of the award in the High Court.
This transforms the award into an enforceable decree of the High Court capable of being executed subject to domestic procedures and rules set out in the CPC (see, Tanzania Cotton Marketing Board v. Cogecot Cotton Company SA [1997] TLR 165) and the special rules limiting attachment of assets of the Government (see, Kibuuka, Paul. “Effects of Tanzania sovereign immunity on govt contracting”. The Citizen. 14 September 2019).
The automatic recognition and enforcement of ICSID awards does not derogate from Tanzanian law on State immunity from execution.
If the High Court refuses to recognise a foreign arbitral award on any of the grounds set forth under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, the aggrieved party may appeal to the Court of Appeal on the strength of the Dowans case.
Overall, charting an advance strategy for enforcing a foreign arbitral award in Tanzania and the execution of assets in satisfaction of the award, even prior to the High Court recognising the award, can improve the chances of being compensated by the government.
Lilian Kyaruzi
NEW MODEL BIT: NEGOTIATIONS TO COMMENCE SOON
NEW MODEL BIT: NEGOTIATIONS TO COMMENCE SOON
In October 2018 the government adopted its new model bilateral investment treaty (BIT) (for further details please see “New model BIT goes beyond consultation draft and introduces sweeping changes for investors”). Following this adoption, the government has now obtained the authorisation required to start the renegotiations with eight non-EU countries and conclude new BITs with two others.
NEGOTIATIONS
The government previously announced that it intends to renegotiate all 78 (non-EU) existing Dutch BITs in order to align them with the new model BIT. Prior authorisation from the European Commission is necessary to start the negotiation of new BITs.
Recently, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs obtained authorisation to start renegotiations with the following countries:
Argentina;
Burkina Faso; Ecuador;
Nigeria;
Tanzania;
Turkey;
Uganda; and
the United Arab Emirates.
Authorisation was also obtained to conclude BITs with Iraq and Qatar.(1)
These countries were selected for the first round of negotiations because:
their current BIT with the Netherlands has been terminated or will expire soon;
they showed interest in the new Dutch Model BIT; and/or
they have significant trade flows with the Netherlands.
It is unclear when the negotiations will commence and it is difficult to predict how long they will take. In any case, it seems likely that it will take several years to renegotiate all existing Dutch BITs.
CHALLENGES AHEAD
With the new model BIT, the government has tried to rebalance the obligations of states and investors, taking into account the recent criticism on the current system of investment treaties and investment treaty arbitration by host states and non-governmental organisations. In addition to limitations on the investors and investments qualifying for protection and important procedural changes, the government has included a rather extensive set of sustainable development commitments and obligations for both investors and host states in the new model BIT.
The government has made clear that the new model BIT is intended to serve as an opening offer that sets the scene for the negotiations. However, as each negotiation will have its own dynamic, it is difficult to predict what the new Dutch BITs will look like.
Arbitrators appear to be set up for a challenge in interpreting and applying the new and possibly diverging provisions on various core issues of international investment law. They can expect little guidance from the government, as it has been confirmed that no overall explanatory note to the new model BIT will be published. It remains unclear to what extent the negotiations will be recorded in order to serve as a means for interpretation.
As various countries have announced their intention to follow in the footsteps of the Dutch government, substantial developments in the area of investment law and arbitration may be expected in the years to come.
For further information on this topic please contact Jeroen van Hezewijk, Sandra Coelen or Alexander Schurink at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP by telephone (+31 20 485 7000) or email (jeroen.vanhezewijk@freshfields.com, sandra.coelen@freshfields.com or alexander.schurink@freshfields.com). The Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP website can be accessed at www.freshfields.com.
Jeroen Van Hezewijk, Sandra Coelen, Alexander Schurink
Nigeria gives UK court $200 mln guarantee for stay on asset seizures in P&ID case
Nigeria gives UK court $200 mln guarantee for stay on asset seizures in P&ID case
The Nigerian government on Thursday placed a bank guarantee of $200 million with a high court in London to secure a stay on asset seizures of up to $9 billion related to a failed gas project, a spokesman for its attorney general said.
Process & Industrial Developments, a firm based in the British Virgin Islands set up solely to build a gas processing plant in Nigeria, won a $6.6 billion arbitration award after the 2010 deal collapsed. The award has been accruing interest since 2013 and is now worth more than $9 billion.
Nigeria in September successfully sought the right to appeal an August ruling that would have converted the arbitration award to a judgment, which would make it easier for P&ID to seize its assets.
Nigeria has said it would fight making any kind of payment to P&ID. The country’s anti-graft unit has also charged two foreign nationals and a former petroleum ministry official with wrongdoing related to the case. P&ID has criticised the investigations as a “sham” that would “never pass muster” in other jurisdictions.
Nigerian Attorney General Abubakar Malami last week said the nation was appealing a requirement that it deposit $200 million with the court in order to secure a stay on asset seizures while it challenged the August ruling.
“This variation in security, which was proposed by Nigeria as an alternative solution during a procedural hearing on 22nd November, has been accepted by the court and P&ID,” the spokesman for the attorney general said in an emailed statement.
A spokesman for P&ID said the company hoped the administration would “accept the reality of the arbitration tribunal award and the decisions of the English Court.”
The government has also expanded its legal team to include London-based law firm Mishcon de Reya. Shaistah Akhtar, a partner with the firm, will lead the legal team alongside Mark Howard QC of Brick Court Chambers, the spokesman said.
Media Gallery
Libby George
Reuters
CANADA DETAINS TANZANIA'S AIRPLANE
CANADA DETAINS TANZANIA'S AIRPLANE
An aeroplane being delivered to Tanzania’s national airline has been impounded in Canada over a Namibian-born farmer’s $33-million compensation claim, Tanzania’s foreign minister said Saturday.
The DHC Dash 8-400 aircraft, a turboprop also known as the Bombardier Q400 which seats up to 90 people, is the second to be seized in connection with case.
In August, an Airbus 220-300 aircraft was seized in South Africa’s Johannesburg airport, after it landed on a flight from Tanzania, but was released in September.
Canada should also know that it is not the only manufacturer of planes in the world.
“The same person who went to court in South Africa, and caused the impounding of Airbus in August, went to a Canadian court,” Tanzania’s Foreign Minister Palamagamba Kabudi.
The plane, built by Canada’s De Havilland company, was due for delivery as part of a fleet expansion of the government-run Air Tanzania.
“We won in a case with this man in South Africa,” Kabudi added, speaking at a government function broadcast on state-media in Tanzania’s capital Dodoma.
“I wonder why this person has emerged in Canada – but our lawyers are getting ready.”
UNCLEAR REASONS
He did not give details of how or where the plane was seized.
“I summoned the Canadian ambassador to Tanzania and clearly told him that Tanzania is not happy – and we are actually angry,” Kabudi said.
There was no immediate response to calls to the Canadian High Commission. In 2017, in a separate case, another Q400 turbo-prop plane was impounded by a Canadian construction firm over a $38 million lawsuit.That plane was later released, reportedly after a financial settlement.
“Canada should also know that it is not the only manufacturer of planes in the world,” Kabudi added. This seizure related to a case dating back to the 1980s, when Tanzania’s government nationalised a massive, privately-owned bean and seed farm, seizing everything including equipment, 250 cars and 12 small planes.
The owner, who is now 86, was awarded $33 million (almost 30 million euros) in compensation in the 1990s — but the government only paid $20 million. The outstanding balance of $16 million has accrued interest over the decades and now stands at $33 million, according to his lawyer.
The farmer has been fighting for decades to get the outstanding amount.
COURT TO HEAR APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF $1.7BN ARBITRAL AWARD DELIVERED IN FAVOUR OF NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT
COURT TO HEAR APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF $1.7BN ARBITRAL AWARD DELIVERED IN FAVOUR OF NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT
At the resumed hearing on Tuesday, counsel to the FG, Prof Fabian Ajogwu (SAN), notified the court that the government was ready to make its case before the court. He observed that the matters at hand were extremely important and ought to be heard urgently, as the government had been needlessly deprived of revenues that were due to it for over four years.
A Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has consolidated a suit challenging the execution of an award and the Federal Government’s application for enforcement of the Award.
Justice Ayokunle Faji set down the hearing of the Federal Government’s suit for the enforcement of its arbitral award against two international oil companies – Atlantic Energy Drilling Concept Nigeria Limited and Atlantic Energy Brass Development Limited till January 22, 2020.
At the resumed hearing on Tuesday, counsel to the FG, Prof Fabian Ajogwu (SAN), notified the court that the government was ready to make its case before the court. He observed that the matters at hand were extremely important and ought to be heard urgently, as the government had been needlessly deprived of revenues that were due to it for over four years.
Recall that sometime in August 2015, the IOCs in question had taken government to arbitration over alleged breaches of contract.
However, their claim failed and the FG, through Ajogwu obtained a landmark arbitral award to the tune of around $1.7bn against the said IOCs for their failure to remit funds due to the government from crude oil operations on the Brass and Forcados assets.
Whilst taking cognisance of the submissions of Ajogwu, Justice Faji directed the IOCs to respond to the FG’s court processes for the enforcement of the award (which were served on them since July 2019) and thereafter adjourned the matter to January 22, 2020 for hearing.
Efforts by our correspondent to speak the lawyer, who represented Atlantic Energy Drilling Concepts Nigeria Limited and Atlantic Brass Development Limited, proved abortive as she left the court premises immediately after the case was adjourned.
SAHARAREPORTERS, NEW YORKNOV
APPEAL AGAINST $200M DEPOSIT ON P&ID CASE NOT LOST, SAYS FG
APPEAL AGAINST $200M DEPOSIT ON P&ID CASE NOT LOST, SAYS FG
The federal government yesterday disclaimed a report that it had lost its appeal against the order of a British commercial court directing it to deposit $200 million as security before the court could grant a stay of execution of the $9.6 billion judgment debt awarded in favour of a British Islands firm, Process and Industrial Developments (P&ID) Limited.
Justice Christopher Butcher of the Commercial Court in London had in August awarded the sum of $9.6 billion judgment debt against Nigeria over an alleged botched gas contract between the country and P&ID.
However, following Nigeria’s appeal against the judgment, the London court ordered the country to deposit $200 million as security into the court’s account while granting request to stay execution of the $9.6 billion award in favour of P&ID.
The court in addition gave Nigeria up till November 25 to make the deposit but the federal government appealed the court’s decision.
But a news report claimed that at the hearing of the appeal on Friday the court refused to grant Nigeria’s bid to stop the deposit of the security.
However, reacting to report that the government failed in its bid to stop the $200 million security deposit, the Solicitor General of the Federation and Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice, Mr. Dayo Apata (SAN), said the government did not lose its appeal, adding that the report in the media was “wrong and twisted.”
Apata stated that parties in the suit would appear before the court today for the court’s decision on whether to allow bank guarantee in place of actual payment, adding that there are indications from Friday’s proceedings that the court might accept a bank guarantee.
“There is no loss of any appeal. The media reports are wrong and twisted,” Apata said, adding: “We are in court on Monday (today) again for Butcher’s decision on whether he will substitute actual payment for bank guarantee. He was said to have indicated on Friday that a satisfactory bank guarantee would be acceptable to him.”
P&ID was reported to have claimed that Nigeria failed to avoid the deposit of $200million security required to stay the execution of the $9.6 billion judgment debt.
The report added that Nigeria accordingly agreed to pay the $200 million security deposit as ordered by Justice Christopher Butcher of the Commercial Court in London in September.
The report was tied to a statement from P&ID, wherein the federal government’s legal team was quoted to have said that Nigeria has agreed to pay the security deposit.
The statement read in part, “Before Justice Butcher today (Friday) in London, the Nigerian legal team acknowledged that President Buhari has authorised the steps to provide a bank guarantee for the $200m in security that was ordered by the English Court in September.
“Moreover, the following steps have already been taken by the Nigerian Government: Ministry of Finance has received approval to proceed with obtaining the bank guarantee; Minister of Finance has submitted a request to the Central Bank of Nigeria to proceed with procuring the bank guarantee; the Central Bank of Nigeria has submitted a request to an unnamed foreign correspondent bank to issue the bank guarantee from London and provide the relevant information to the court.”
However, Apata dismissed the report, saying parties will appear before the court today (Monday) on the issue.
P&ID had in 2012 instituted the legal battle against Nigeria in the Court of Arbitration in the UK in 2012 following Nigeria’s refusal to carry on with the GSPA agreement entered with the firm in 2010.
By the terms of the agreement, P&ID was to build and operate an accelerated gas development project at Adiabo in Odukpani Local Government Area (LGA) of Cross River State. The agreement required the federal government to supply natural gas from Addax Petroleum-operated Oil Mining Leases (OMLs) 123 and 67 for P&ID to refine into fuel suitable for power generation in the country.
According to the terms, the initial volume of gas was about 150 million cubic feet of gas per day, which would be ramped up to about 400 million cubic feet per day during the 20-year period.
P&ID alleged that after signing the agreement, the federal government reneged on its obligation after it had opened negotiations with the Cross River State Government for allocation of land for the project.
P&ID claimed that the failure of the federal government to construct the pipeline system to supply the gas frustrated the construction of the gas project and deprived it the potential benefits expected from 20 years’ worth of gas supplies.
But the federal government has continued to maintain that P&ID never began the construction of the project facility for which it claimed about $40 million in preliminary expenses.
The government said the firm’s claim in the arbitration proceedings was mainly for loss of profit for the entire twenty-year term of the GSPA, “initially claiming the sum of US$1.9 billion and later increasing its claim to US$5.9bn.
Solicitor General of the Federation had in a statement on August 16, said though the arbitral tribunal had on January 31, 2017 rendered its final award against the Ministry of Petroleum Resources in the sum of $6.597 billion together with pre-award interest at the rate of 7% per annum effective from March 20, 2013 and post award interest at the same rate till date of payment, the government had challenged the decision.
Meanwhile, the Abuja Division of the Federal High Court had on September 19 convicted and subsequently ordered the winding up of P&ID and its Nigerian affiliate, P&ID Nigeria Limited.
The court also ordered the forfeiture of “the assets and properties” of the two firms to the Nigerian government.
Justice Inyang Ekwo made the orders after the two firms, through their representatives, pleaded guilty to the 11-count charges of fraud, money laundering, tax evasion and other sundry charges in connection with a year 2010 contract leading to the recent controversial judgment of a British court recognising the award of $9.6bn in favour of P&ID by an arbitration panel.
Alex Enumah in Abuja
ZIMBABWE: BITUMEN ENGINEERING, CHINA INTERNATIONAL COURT BATTLE RAGES #3
OMUTHIYA CEO SAGA HEADS FOR ARBITRATION
The dispute between Omuthiya town council and former CEO Samuel Mbango is in a for an arbitration hearing today with the labour court in Ondangwa.
Mbango had summoned the local authority to the labour court for unfair dismissal, following the nonrenewal of his employment contract, which expired on August, 31. He argues that the council did not follow due procedures in relieving him, because he was informed on a short notice against the three month notice period as per the requirement.
He also accused local councillors namely mayor Katrina Uusiku, her deputy Hiskiel Nanyeni, management committee chairperson Beata Nashongo and member Enos Shipahu of plotting the nonrenewal due to his resistance to allow alleged dubious dealings.
A letter to Mbango dated June, 10, indicated that, “based on a June 3, 2019 resolution no MC31/05/2019, the item regarding your employment contract was discussed and it was resolved the position you are currently holding as a Chief Executive Officer will be advertised and you have the right to apply.”
By virtue, it was already in contravention of his employment contract, which required a three -month notice period.
Upon being presented with the notice, Mbango refused to go down alone as he revealed alleged corrupt activities, nepotism and maladministration against his seniors, allegations that they have vehemently denied.
Meanwhile, the Minister of Urban and Rural Development Peya Mushelenga was roped in to resolve the matter, but threw the ball back to council, saying it was now a legal issue which needed to be resolved internally.
In a letter dated September, 12, from Mushelenga in response to the local councillors who sought recourse in a letter of August 15, he said: “in terms of section 27 (3) (b) (I) of the Local Authorities Act no. 23 of 1992 as amended, council obliged to have given the CEO a written notice of its intention to retain his service or not before the end of his contract. I have not been given evidence that this legal requirement has been complied with.” Mushelenga went on to say, “if the things outlined in paragraph 1.1 to 1.4 of your letter refer to purported irregularities or misconducts by the CEO, administrative justice requires that council should have charged the CEO, if it (council) had evidence of such claims.”
The minister thus ruled and implored council to ensure compliance with the procedures and legislations to avoid unnecessary labour disputes and challenges.
However, such advice has come a little too late to extinguish the fire.
As from last week, the council appointed the institution’s manager for technical services, Simon Nghuulondo as acting CEO.
Obrien Simasiku
neweralive-na.cdn.ampproject.org
NOSTRA TERRA TO EXIT EAST GHAZALAT CONCESSION IN EGYPT
NOSTRA TERRA TO EXIT EAST GHAZALAT CONCESSION IN EGYPT
Nostra Terra Oil and Gas’ (NTOG) subsidiary Nostra Terra (NTI) has signed a conditional agreement regarding the East Ghazalat concession, Egypt.
In mid-August, the London Court of International Arbitration Tribunal ruled against the company in relation to the East Ghazalat concession.
NTI holds a 50% participating interest while North Petroleum owns the remaining stake.
NTI has agreed to transfer its stake in East Ghazalat to North Petroleum to conclude the arbitration, with no further cash calls or liabilities for any past losses.
The company considers the East Ghazalat asset as a non-core asset to the company.
NTI CEO Matt Lofgran said: “I am very pleased that NTI has reached this agreement with North, which sees Nostra Terra effect a clean exit from this non-core concession. Following the arbitration, NTI had the option to pay past cash calls and continue with the asset.
“However, we have taken the view that because the asset is loss-making and given we are not the operator, despite the fact that we feel that we could improve operations significantly, ultimately the best resolution is for NTI to transfer its interest and have no past or future liability.
“Nostra Terra is focused on the Permian Basin, and East Texas, US, where it operates and expects to grow through a combination of acquisitions and drilling of further wells.”
NTOG noted that the assignment would be completed upon receiving approvals from the necessary government authorities.
'ILLEGAL COLONIAL OCCUPANT': UK CRITICISED FOR IGNORING UN DEADLINE TO RETURN TERRITORY TO MAURITIUS
'ILLEGAL COLONIAL OCCUPANT': UK CRITICISED FOR IGNORING UN DEADLINE TO RETURN TERRITORY TO MAURITIUS
Britain separated the Chagos Islands from its colony Mauritius more than 50 years ago. The UK has defied an order given by the UN after failing to return control of an overseas territory to the island nation of Mauritius.
The United Nations overwhelmingly voted in May, based on findings by the UN’s International Court of Justice, to set a six-month deadline for the UK to withdraw from the Indian Ocean archipelago.
While not legally binding, the UN vote heaped diplomatic pressure on Britain to return the Chagos Islands, with the General Assembly backing the resolution 116 votes to six.
The government of Mauritius accused the UK of being “an illegal colonial occupant” in the Chagos Archipelago shortly after the ruling.
Britain separated the Chagos Islands from its colony Mauritius more than 50 years ago, expelling the entire population to make way for a strategic US military base.
Britain’s 1965 acquisition of the remote Indian Ocean archipelago of about 55 islands for £3 million has been disputed ever since, with Mauritius demanding its return. When Mauritius became independent three years later, the islands remained under British control, renamed the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT).
Jeremy Corbyn vowed to “end colonial rule” if he wins the 12 December election and accused the Conservatives of “shamefully” considering themselves above international law.
“It’s clear that in refusing to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius and defying the UN General Assembly and International Court of Justice, this Conservative government shamefully considers itself to be above international law,” the Labour leader said.
Mauritius argues it was illegal for Britain to break up its territory. It claims sovereignty over the archipelago and demands the right to resettle former residents.
In 1966 Britain leased the islands to the United States for 50 years so that it could set up a military base. In 2016 the deal was extended to 2036.
Between 1968 and 1973 around 2,000 Chagos islanders were evicted, described in a British diplomatic cable at the time as the removal of some “Tarzans and Man Fridays”.
ZIMBABWE: BITUMEN ENGINEERING, CHINA INTERNATIONAL COURT BATTLE RAGES
ZIMBABWE: BITUMEN ENGINEERING, CHINA INTERNATIONAL COURT BATTLE RAGES
China International Water and Electrical Corporation and Bitumen Engineering (Pvt) Ltd are embroiled in an arbitral award wrangle over an agreement for surfacing of Tugwi-Mukosi road.
China International has approached the High Court seeking to reverse the court’s judgment setting aside an arbitral award, which was in its favour.
The two companies entered into an agreement of US$1 205 869, 93 for the surfacing of the Tugwi-Mukosi road on April 28, 2018.
“After expiry of the contract, Bitumen Engineering instituted arbitration proceedings against China International on the grounds that it had breached their agreement and claimed $788 905, 43,” read the court papers.
“Bitumen was unsuccessful, and on April 9, 2019, an arbitrator Peter Morris issued an arbitral award in favour of China International awarding it $63, 273, 86 in compensation for additional costs it incurred due to a breach of contract by Bitumen Engineering.”
According to the arbitral award, parties were to agree on whether the $63 273, 86 was to be settled in the form of stone or in money.
Bitumen proceeded to file an application for the setting aside of the arbitral award under case number HC 5653/19 which was granted because China International was in default.
Now, China International wants the default judgment entered against them to be set aside.
They want an opportunity to file their notice of opposition in the matter.
“China International was not in wilful default. The resignation of applicant’s legal practitioner Mr Muchengeti Chivaura left a gap that led to the misfiling of the application,” read the application.
“Upon resignation of the legal practitioner, there was a failure to attend timeously to opposing the application.
“In fact, we only became aware of the existence of the application upon or filing of the application to register the arbitral award.
“Upon filling an application for the registration of the arbitral award on 25th September 25, this when we became aware of the default judgment.”
Fungai Lupande