scova engineering spa another vs mtibwa estates ltd others 2021 tzca 74 12 march 2021

scova engineering spa another vs mtibwa estates ltd others 2021 tzca 74 12 march 2021

The parties, by Clause 1.9.2, validly agreed to litigate disputes in the Court of Rome, and such a forum selection clause is enforceable where multiple competent forums exist. The High Court was correct to refuse jurisdiction but erred in dismissing the suit instead of staying proceedings pending determination in the chosen forum.

Citation
scova engineering spa another vs mtibwa estates ltd others 2021 tzca 74 12 march 2021
Parties
Appellant: SCOVA Engineering S.p.A.; Appellant: IRTEC S.p.A.; Respondent: Mtibwa Sugar Estates Limited; Respondent: Kagera Sugar Limited; Respondent: Super Star Forwarders Company Limited; Respondent: General Motors Investment Limited
Court
TZCA
Jurisdiction
Tanzania
Judgment Date
12 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Choice of Law, Forum Selection Clauses, Privity of Contract, Stay of Proceedings
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Conflict of Laws Jurisdiction Choice of Law Forum Selection Clauses Privity of Contract Stay of Proceedings

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SCOVA Engineering S.p.A.

Appellant

IRTEC S.p.A.

Appellant

Mtibwa Sugar Estates Limited

Respondent

Kagera Sugar Limited

Respondent

Super Star Forwarders Company Limited

Respondent

General Motors Investment Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Clause 1.9.2 of the Guarantee and Indemnity Agreement ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court of Tanzania
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the suit instead of staying proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the forum selection clause binds all respondents, including non-signatories

Ratio Decidendi

The parties, by Clause 1.9.2, validly agreed to litigate disputes in the Court of Rome, and such a forum selection clause is enforceable where multiple competent forums exist. The High Court was correct to refuse jurisdiction but erred in dismissing the suit instead of staying proceedings pending determination in the chosen forum.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • High Court's order of dismissal vacated and substituted with an order staying the suit in the High Court, Commercial Division pending determination in the Court of Rome
  • Each party to bear its own costs