iringa municipal council vs jv tangerm construction company ltd intercity builders company ltd 2023 tzhccomd 125 28 april 2023

iringa municipal council vs jv tangerm construction company ltd intercity builders company ltd 2023 tzhccomd 125 28 april 2023

The arbitral award was set aside because the arbitrator failed to enforce the contract and procurement law requirements regarding approval and early warning for variations, constituting a serious irregularity and contravening public policy. The arbitrator also correctly declined jurisdiction over claims not previously adjudicated, but erred in condoning breaches of contract and procurement regulations.

Citation
iringa municipal council vs jv tangerm construction company ltd intercity builders company ltd 2023 tzhccomd 125 28 april 2023
Parties
Petitioner: Iringa Municipal Council; Respondent: JV Tangerm Construction Co. Ltd & Intercity Builders Co. Ltd
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
28 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Petition to Set Aside Arbitral Award / Ruling on Petition
Outcome
arbitral award set aside
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitral Award, Public Policy in Arbitration, Contractual Variations, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Procurement Regulations
Source Language
English
Arbitration Public Procurement Construction Law Setting Aside Arbitral Award Public Policy in Arbitration Contractual Variations Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Procurement Regulations

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iringa Municipal Council

Petitioner

JV Tangerm Construction Co. Ltd & Intercity Builders Co. Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition to Set Aside Arbitral Award / Ruling on Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral award was procured contrary to law and public policy due to unapproved contract variations
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine claims not raised before the adjudicator
  3. 3 Whether failure to follow contract and procurement procedures constitutes serious irregularity warranting setting aside the award

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitral award was set aside because the arbitrator failed to enforce the contract and procurement law requirements regarding approval and early warning for variations, constituting a serious irregularity and contravening public policy. The arbitrator also correctly declined jurisdiction over claims not previously adjudicated, but erred in condoning breaches of contract and procurement regulations.

Court Disposition

arbitral award set aside

Orders

  • The arbitral award is set aside for serious irregularity and contravention of public policy.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.