ms marine services co ltd vs ms gas entec company ltd 2021 tzhccomd 3337 17 september 2021

ms marine services co ltd vs ms gas entec company ltd 2021 tzhccomd 3337 17 september 2021

The award was set aside because the arbitrator failed to ensure compliance with mandatory procurement laws and contract provisions requiring employer approval for contract variations, resulting in an illegality contrary to public policy under section 75(2)(g) of the Arbitration Act, Cap. 15 R.E 2020. Other grounds, including lack of jurisdiction, bias, and failure to give reasons, were dismissed as unmeritorious.

Citation
ms marine services co ltd vs ms gas entec company ltd 2021 tzhccomd 3337 17 september 2021
Parties
Petitioner: M/S Marine Services Co. Ltd; Respondent: M/S Gas Entec Company Ltd
Court
TZHCCOMD
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
17 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Petition to Set Aside Arbitral Award / Ruling on Petition to Set Aside Arbitral Award
Outcome
petition allowed in part; arbitral award set aside in whole
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitral Awards, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Public Policy in Arbitration, Contract Interpretation, Procurement Law Compliance
Source Language
English
Arbitration Public Procurement Commercial Law Setting Aside Arbitral Awards Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Public Policy in Arbitration Contract Interpretation Procurement Law Compliance

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M/S Marine Services Co. Ltd

Petitioner

M/S Gas Entec Company Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition to Set Aside Arbitral Award / Ruling on Petition to Set Aside Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitral award should be set aside for serious irregularity under section 75 of the Arbitration Act, Cap. 15 R.E 2020
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator acted without or in excess of jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the award contravened public policy by violating procurement laws

Ratio Decidendi

The award was set aside because the arbitrator failed to ensure compliance with mandatory procurement laws and contract provisions requiring employer approval for contract variations, resulting in an illegality contrary to public policy under section 75(2)(g) of the Arbitration Act, Cap. 15 R.E 2020. Other grounds, including lack of jurisdiction, bias, and failure to give reasons, were dismissed as unmeritorious.

Court Disposition

petition allowed in part; arbitral award set aside in whole

Orders

  • Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the petition dismissed
  • Ground 5 of the petition upheld under section 75(2)(g) Arbitration Act