An application for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award pursuant to proceeding conducted in the London Court of International Arbitration was made. DHL was obliged to pay Phoenix pursuant to a sub-contract allegedly concluded between DHL and Bateman.
DHL failed to allege and prove a valid agreement containing a submission to arbitration. Therefore the agreement no arbitration can claim jurisdiction to determine the dispute. So Bateman can challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitrator in this court. The purported agreement, on the basis of which the tribunal in London found liable to DHL, is invalid. The recognition and enforcement of an award derived from such alleged agreement would offend public policy in the Republic. Therefore, the application by DHL to intervene as the co-applicant in the main application ought to fail. The applicant (DHL) is ordered to pay the respondent’s (Bateman) costs.
The appellant (Lufuno) had sub-contracted with the second responding (Boponang Construction) for the latter to execute electrical work on one of the appellant’s projects. As a result of a dispute which arose between the parties, the second respondent sued the appellant for payment. That action was abandoned when the parties agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration. The first respondent (Niger Andreuis) was appointed as arbitrator and he has found that the appellant was liable for paying to the second respondent, albeit in a lesser amount than that claimed. Appellant approached the high court for the review of the award. High court refused the review application and granted the second respondent application to make the award an order of court. However, leave to appeal was granted.
Appeal dismissed because the parties had waived the right to have the merits of their dispute re-litigated or reconsidered. Interference by court was therefore limited to the ground of procedural irregularities. There are no reasonable grounds to think that Andrews might have been biased hence the award is immune from interference.
Appellant entered into an agreement to provide for the development of software to the respondent. The latter refused to make payment upon performance by the appellant. Dispute referred to arbitration. He has found that the appellant’s interpretation of the agreement was correct, & that the appellant had then validly accepted the repudiation. Respondent sought judicial review in the High Court. The latter set aside the arbitration award, removed the arbitrator & appointed 3 new arbitrators in his place because it was believed that the arbitrator had committed certain gross irregularities in the arbitration proceedings in the course of interpreting the contract.
Appeal upheld & High Court order is set aside. The High Court erred in approaching the dispute by interpreting the agreement afresh. It should first have determined whether there were any reviewable acts committed by the arbitration. Although arbitrator might have been wrong, this does not mean that he had misconceived the nature of the inquiry or his duties, or that he acted irrationally. The High Court had wrongly blurred the distinction between the factual issues, question of law & procedural irregularities.