ngoshwe
JF-Expert Member
- Mar 31, 2009
- 4,131
- 937
ILE HUKUMU YA JAJI DR. FAUZ
Mlimnukuu vibaya: Jaji amekuaja na ufafanuzi huu:
Tuesday, February 21, 2012 10:32 AM
" Yesterday, I delivered a ruling in TANESCO v DOWANS that raised a couple of new issues on arbitration that I believe will be of interest to commercial lawyers.
The issues are: (1) Whether a High Court order registering an arbitration award is appellable; and if so (2) Whether the intended appellant must obtain leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The difficulty was brought about by the existence of rule 21 (and by implication, rule 16) of the 2nd Schedule to the CPC, which expressly restricts appeals from such orders to only two grounds (where the decree is "in excess of the Award", or "otherwise not in accordance with the Award").
Secondly, upon reading today's papers, I was shocked by the inconsistencies contained in most of the articles reporting the decision in the various print media. What is even more surprising is the fact that papers belonging to the same media house give entirely contradictory reports. The article in the Guardian, a paper I trust, is a huge disappointment. It even contradicts IPP Media's television coverage of the decision on ITV, and purports to quote me saying something I never uttered! I just hope that there will be improvement in the way our reporters (especially those reporting court cases) perform their duties.
I am sending you a soft copy of the ruling so that you may circulate to TLS members. Lawyers would need to know what exactly was decided and why.
Thanks and good day.
FT"
View attachment TANESCO V DOWANS (RG 20 Feb 2012.pdf
Mlimnukuu vibaya: Jaji amekuaja na ufafanuzi huu:
Tuesday, February 21, 2012 10:32 AM
" Yesterday, I delivered a ruling in TANESCO v DOWANS that raised a couple of new issues on arbitration that I believe will be of interest to commercial lawyers.
The issues are: (1) Whether a High Court order registering an arbitration award is appellable; and if so (2) Whether the intended appellant must obtain leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
The difficulty was brought about by the existence of rule 21 (and by implication, rule 16) of the 2nd Schedule to the CPC, which expressly restricts appeals from such orders to only two grounds (where the decree is "in excess of the Award", or "otherwise not in accordance with the Award").
Secondly, upon reading today's papers, I was shocked by the inconsistencies contained in most of the articles reporting the decision in the various print media. What is even more surprising is the fact that papers belonging to the same media house give entirely contradictory reports. The article in the Guardian, a paper I trust, is a huge disappointment. It even contradicts IPP Media's television coverage of the decision on ITV, and purports to quote me saying something I never uttered! I just hope that there will be improvement in the way our reporters (especially those reporting court cases) perform their duties.
I am sending you a soft copy of the ruling so that you may circulate to TLS members. Lawyers would need to know what exactly was decided and why.
Thanks and good day.
FT"
View attachment TANESCO V DOWANS (RG 20 Feb 2012.pdf