first assurance co ltd vs makete district council and others 2020 tzhc 1273 29 may 2020

first assurance co ltd vs makete district council and others 2020 tzhc 1273 29 may 2020

The applicant failed to prove misconduct or improper procurement of the arbitral award. The tribunal did not raise new issues outside the five framed for determination, the right to be heard was granted, the arbitrator acted within jurisdiction, and the performance bond's time limitation was properly applied. No errors of law apparent on the face of the award were established.

Citation
first assurance co ltd vs makete district council and others 2020 tzhc 1273 29 may 2020
Parties
Applicant: First Assurance Co. Ltd; 1st Respondent: Makete District Council; 2nd Respondent: Anube Business Co. Ltd; 3rd Respondent: Cererinus B. Rweyongeza
Court
TZHC
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
29 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Misc. Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitral Awards, Performance Bond Validity, Jurisdiction of Arbitrator, Right to Be Heard, Errors of Law
Source Language
English
Arbitration Contract Law Setting Aside Arbitral Awards Performance Bond Validity Jurisdiction of Arbitrator Right to Be Heard Errors of Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First Assurance Co. Ltd

Applicant

Makete District Council

1st Respondent

Anube Business Co. Ltd

2nd Respondent

Cererinus B. Rweyongeza

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Misc. Civil Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral award should be set aside for misconduct
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator denied the applicant the right to be heard on new issues
  3. 3 Whether the arbitrator acted outside his jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove misconduct or improper procurement of the arbitral award. The tribunal did not raise new issues outside the five framed for determination, the right to be heard was granted, the arbitrator acted within jurisdiction, and the performance bond's time limitation was properly applied. No errors of law apparent on the face of the award were established.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs awarded to respondents