20160218 TZHC Dar es Salaam1 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TANZANIA

AT DAR ES SALAAM MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 555 OF 2014 IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 6 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT, [CAP. 15 R.E. 2002]

AND

IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION TO STAY

PROCEEDINGS PENDING ARBITRATION

BETWEEN AIRTEL TANZANIA LTD ........................ PETITIONER V. AFRITEL LTD .. .................................... RES PO ND ENT

RULING Shangwa, J. Sometimes in 2014, the Applicant and the Respondent fell into differertces and disputes arising out of the National 1 Dealership Agreement signed by both of them on 7 th March, 2003. On 24 th October, 2014,REX ATTORNEYS for Airtel Tanzania Ltd presented for filing a petition to stay proceedings of Civil Case No. 219 of 2014 pending reference of their differences and disputes arising out of the said Agreement to Arbitration. This petition was argued by way of written submissions. In his written submissions, counsel for the Petitioner Dr. Alex Nguluma submitted that prior to commencement of any court proceedings, the parties had to refer the dispute between them to Arbitration just in accordance with clauses 15.1, 15.2 and 15.3 of the National Dealership Agreement (NDA). That the petitione~ had no intention of avoiding arbitration between the parties as avoiding arbitration would be detrimental to both of them. 2 In his reply submissions at page 1 to 2, counsel for the Respondent Mr. Wel Wel submitted that the Respondent made every possible effort to have the dispute arbitrated in terms of the National Dealership Agreement but that the Petitioner blocked all the efforts of the Respondent making it impossible to constitute the arbitral panel and arbitrate the dispute. As it can be seen, counsel for the Respondent does concede that under the national Dealership

Agreement, entered into by the parties any difference or dispute arising from the said Agreement has to be referred to Arbitration before the commencement of any court proceedings. In my view therefore, the Respondent went contrary to the terms and conditions of the National dealership Agreement when it filed Civil Case No. 219 of 2014. As correctly argued by Dr. Alex Nguluma, a contract constitutes law between parties agreeing to be bound by it and that the Respondent has not given any evidence to establish that the petitioner refused to enable the arbitration process to commence. Thus, on my part, I find no difficulty in grahting this petition. I do grant it and I stay the proceedings in the 3 \,, main suit i.e Civil Case No. 219 of 2014. Each party to bear its own costs. ~ A.Shangwa

JUDGE 18/2/2016 4