Wanasheria, hukumu ya DOWANS na doctrine ya RES JUDICATA

Buchanan said:
Nilikuwa namaanisha kwamba Award isipokuwa registered DOWANS hawatakuwa na haki ya kulipwa? Na kama watakuwa na haki ya kulipwa bila registration, sasa maana ya registration ni nini?
Click to expand...

Pursuant to section 12 of the Arbitration Act(Cap.15),an arbitral award has to be filed with the High Court of Tanzania for either enforcement or challenging its validity as a decree of the court.The filing can be done by the the award issuing tribunal or by either party to the dispute upon request and payment of all outstanding fees to the tribunal.Otherwise is to say that the High Court will have no mandates to issue any order over unregistered award and as such the bindingness and enforceability of the award will remain validity as contract between the parties but subject to the time limit allowed under the law of limitation Act for the same to be filed and dully enforced or challenged by either of the parties to the dispute.
 
KAUMZA said:
Wajomba"nchi wahisani" wataweza kutukatia misaada na pia uwekezaji utashuka nchini kwa kuwa tutaonekana wahuni. Tatizo hapa ni kwamba, wanasiasa waliingilia sheria. Inatugharimu na itatugharimu
Click to expand...

Labda hilo la uwekezaji lakini kama ni misaada wakate tu labda tutaweza kuachieve uwiano wa wenye nacho na wasionacho maana hii misaada ndio inayojaza mifuko ya baadhi ya watanzania na kuwaacha mamilioni wengine katika lindi kubwa la umaskini.,Nyerere aliwahi kusema na mimi naamini kauli hiyo kwamba nchi za kiafrika ikiwemo Tanzania kamwe hatuwezi kuendelea kwa misaada.
 

Kama Yona na Mramba, walitumia madaraka ya ofisi zao vibaya wakaigarimu Taifa bilioni 11 na wamefikishwa mahakamani! sasa hawa wanasheria walioishauri Tanesco kuvunja mkataba na wakijua fika kutaigharimu taifa bilioni 94! Viongozi walioingia mkataba na Richmond feki, na wakaona inauzwa kwa Dowans wakanyamaza kwanin wasifikishwe mahakamani? Hawa viongozi c wanajulikana jamani? Wanasheria na wanaharakati mnaoipenda Tz hamuwezi kutoa msaada kwenye hili ili muwawajibishe hawa wahujumu uchumi?
 
Mkuu Ngoswe naomba ufafanuzi

Unaposema suala ni private na wanaharakati wanaweza wasiruhusiwe kuingilia jambo hili. Mimi nilidhani Tanesco au yeyote ambaye aliingia kwenye mkataba ilikuwa ni kwa niamba ya UMMA! Sasa endapo hao wanaharakati wanawakirisha umma (either kwa kukusanya saini zao au vinginevyo) wanawezaje kuzuiwa kuingilia kati?
 
 
Dear Colleaques !

Many of you have raised concerns regarding privity rule of contract. Surely as a general rule a party who is not part to the contract can not in law be a part to proceed or even attempt to seek claims in freely negotiated contract between other independent parties.

Fair enough, in the case of Dowans learned friends you must be able to differetiate between purely commercial arbitrations or private arbitrations and Investiment Arbitrations. To make it clear there is almost no difference but slight because in simple language public interest is like to appear in every case. If public interest is not found then the arbitrations remains as purely private and the privity doctrine stands to. If however the commercial or private or Investiment Arbitration involves public interest then the privity to contract becomes absolutely toothless. This is what is like, with TANESCO V DOWANS issue. Do not be supprised with LHRC case. Let's agree to disagree but I personally salute this move.

To make it more simpler if say Mr. X a business man in country A enters into agreement with Mr. Z in country B regarding a sale of maize, they may agree to choose an Arbitration as venue or institution say ICC to proceed shall a dispute arise.

vs.

Mr .T (DOWANS) a legal entity registered in country C enters into agreement with Mr. P a legal entity whole state owned (TANESCO) in country D regarding a suppy of electricty or clear water or gass, they may agree to choose an Arbitration as venue or institution say ICC to proceed shall a dispute arise.

Are these two questions one and the same ?

For me, the major difference apart from one involving legal entities which of course do not differ with individuals as far as legal personality is concerned is that state owned entities obviously involves a questions of public interest, as compared to purely private commercial arbitration in which case while other private or commercial arbitrations are predominatly confedential, commercial arbitrations where an element of public interest is raised, third parties in this case individuals or groups in that Republic have a stake to appeal or raise objections agaisnt payments of international arbitation or even purportedly international arbitration parties even though from the begining public element was never a direct part to the contract. Does it make any sense to you ?

Another example to look at is what is difference between an entity whole privately owned and entity whole state owned with regards to public interest? Can n't you easily stay goverments and state owned entities resembles principal/agency relationships, in which anything which the goverment enters or does its legitimacy comes from the poeple of this Great Republic ? So why are you confusing things ?

Besides what does the Constitution United Republic of Tanzania 1977 as amended states regarding public interest cases ? Must you directly affected or fall a victim for one to intervene ? Read Mtikila's case for more details on public interest cases. Furthernmore if you read about other international Trade Law instruments like UNCITRAL modal Law, ICSD and ICC LCIA new rules. You will gather some differences.

Please take sometimes read this piece ( Also available at Publicist: A Look At The Public Interest In Investment Arbitration: Is It Unique? What Should We Do About It?).

The Saipem v. Bangladesh award[6] is illustrative of the continuum between commercial and investment arbitration. It reveals how an ordinary commercial arbitration can evolve into an investment treaty arbitration. Saipem, an Italian company, entered into a contract to build a gas pipeline with Petrobangla, a state-owned company of Bangladesh. The contract was governed by the law of Bangladesh. The contract contained an ICC clause, designating Dhaka, Bangladesh, as the seat of the arbitration.
A dispute arose when, following completion of the pipeline and its takeover by Petrobangla, Petrobangla refused to repay the retention money stipulated in the contract, even though Saipem had released a warranty bond.[7] Saipem initiated ICC arbitration under the terms of the contract. The ICC tribunal held its hearings in Dhaka. After Petrobangla failed in a number of procedural requests before the ICC tribunal, it decided to resort to the courts of Bangladesh. In April 2000, a court of Dhaka issued a decision revoking the authority of the ICC tribunal, finding that a miscarriage of justice had taken place based on the way in which the ICC tribunal had handled evidence. Following the revocation of the ICC tribunal's authority, the ICC tribunal nevertheless proceeded with the arbitration.[8] Petrobangla continued to resort to the courts of Bangladesh to seek to set aside the ICC tribunal's orders. When the ICC tribunal finally handed down an award in which it found Petrobangla liable for damages, Petrobangla sought to have the award set aside. The High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh denied the application, finding it "misconceived and incompetent inasmuch as there is no Award in the eye of the law, which can be set aside. […] A non-existent award can neither be set aside nor can it be enforced."[9]

Got anything ?

Cheers
 
Learned Brothers & Sisters!!
Jamani Tengenzeni Dream Team ya Lawyers katika TZ mtusaidie katika hili if you can na kama sheria inaruhusu. wengine katika hili hatuna mchango wa maana wa kitaaluma tunawategemea zaidi nyinyi. otherwise thanx for a very constructive discussion and comments on this thread.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Japo mimi si mtaalamu sana wa sheria na maombi yalipolekwa mahamani kupinga kusajiliwa kwa Tuzo ya Dowans sijayasoma, mimi naomba doctrine ya res-judicata haitakuwa na nafasi. Doctrine hiyo ingetumika kama wangekuwa wamefungua kesi kupinga uhalali wa mkataba wa Dowans. Kwa hapa, wanaharakati wamefungua maombi ya kupinga kusajiliwa kwa Tuzo pengine ili kusubilia maombi yao ya kutengua maamuzi ya ICC kwa sababu ilipatikana kinyume cha utaratibu bila kuzingatia sheria. Kama wana sababu za msingi au la hilo ni suala jingine ambalo halihusiani na doctrine ya res-judicata.
 

Mr. George.

Kwanza kabisa niseme mimi naungana na wewe katika hii lakini sababu zangu ni tofauti kidogo. The Doctrine of RES JUDICATA AND ESTOPPEL OF JUDGEMENT is not applicable in the TANESCO vs. Dowans case. I will start with few explanations first.

RES is a latin word meaning A THING

JUDICATA is also a latin word meaning ADJUDGED

RES JUDICATA therefore is a latin Maxim which mean A THING ADJUDGED. If a court which is comptent to try case for instance, once all facts have been disposed before it, the court is bound to make a rulling or judgment or make a conclusion. This conclusion is therefore final and complete and no one is allowed legally speaking to challenge or open such a case or matter in another court unless there are factul or lawful grounds to challenge.

ESTOPPEL is an english word meaning TO STOP, STOPING ..

JUDGEMENT is also an english word meaning verdict, pronoucement, Assessment, decision, rulling etc...

ESTOPPEL OF JUDGEMENT therefore is an english phrase comonly used to express reality that once agreeing on the decision of the court competent to make such a decision, a person is estopped from dying or challenging or refusing to recognize or enforce without lawfull or factual grounds.

Baada ya kusema hayo ni dhahiri kwamba kumbe hii doctrine is not in itself ABSOLUTE because factual issues or lawful grounds may still be applicable in which case a person may still open another case in another court to challenge a purportedly completed matter.

Sasa baada ya kutoa malezo hayo, issue ya LHRC kufungua case sio kupinga kusajiliwa kwa hukumu ya ICC bali ni kupinga malipo against DOWANS. Swala la kusajili TUZO ni mandatory yaani kisheria because ICC is foreign court if I may use this language, no foreign Jugdement is enforceable unless it has been registered in High Court if I may use the Arbitration Act for it to be enforcebale. The reasoning here is that, our court have the mandate to scrutinize the judgement to satisfy itself to pass the test of ALL laws and policies of the state in which the said TUZO holder is seeking to enforce the same.

Kwa lugha nyingine hata bila pingamizi la LHRC our High Court in its own motion bound to see to it that the TUZO meet required legal standards, short of that it may refuse to enforce the TUZO. Hivyo basi ieleweka kwamba LHRC and some of us are arguing that DOWANS claims are unfounded because the contract which is the base of all these is VOID ABINTIAL. We have both factual and Lawful grounds to challenge the ICC Award therefore no RES JUDICATA AND ESTPPEL OF JUDGEMENT would apply.

YAANI contracting with a non-existence person is in law illegal. Hata mahakama gani duniani itoe judegement ya aina hii, huwezi kusema kwamba a person is bound from opening the same case in another court simply because it has been decision by a competent court........HAIPO....Besides, when challenging a contract, sheria za nchi husika ndio zitakazo tumika kujudge whether or not the purportedly passed judgement is a judgement .....

Kwa lugha nyingine a Foreign Judgement is only a judgement once it has been recognized and re-passed by our courts for it to be enforceable. IN OTHER WORDS IT IS A FUNDEMENTAL PRINCIPLE TO SAY THAT A FOREIGN JUDGEMENT IS A DEEMED JUDGEMENT UNTIL WHEN OUR COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED AND AGREED AS ENFORCEABLE.

Angalizo: LHRC walichokosea ni (my opinion) kufungua case ya kupinga kwenye HIGH COURT( COMMERCIAL DIVISION) swali: Is Commercial Division of the High Court a HIGH COURT ? Do not get me wrong, all commercial cases or matters are reefered to HIGH COURT ( COMMERCIAL DIVISION) for speeding business related matters or cases.

Lakini the Arbitration Act N0.15 2002 R.E specifically states in section 3 part II " All matters submitted to Arbitration formed the subject of the suit, THE HIGH COURT would only be COMPETENT TO TRY"...... SWALI: Is HIGH COURT ( COMMERCIAL DIVISION) A HIGH COURT in this case ?

Again the Arbitration act also states that whereever a court is refeered it should mean HIGH COURT of Tanzania as stated by section 2 Interpretation section ...now is HIGH COURT Commercial Division a HIGH COURT according to the Arbitration Act ?

Those are the issues to consider.
 

Ni wewe ukiyeingiza suala la Wahisani hapa unaondoa Siasa na kuingiza masuala ya Wahisani kana kwamba Fedha za misaada ziko juu ya Siasa yetu.
Hivi kuna sheria za kufuata ili kupata misaada kutoka nje??
Madikteta wanasaidiwa na wahisani wao hata pale wakivunja sheria za kimataifa kama Uvunjaji wa Haki za Binadamu.
Madikteta wanapewa misaada na wahisani kwa sababu ya ku Fulfil interest za Wahisani hata kama ni za kushindisha njaa nusu ya wanchi.

MAtaifa yanayo simama kidete ili kulinda maslahi ya nchi zao kwa kufuta sheria mara zote yamekuwa yakinyimwa misaada kutokana na kiranga chao. Kama hulindi interest za Bwana wako sijui ni vipi atakupa kile wewe ukiitacho "misaada"

Wewe unaingiza suala la Wahisani kwenye Soo la Dowans Unalifanya suala la kukosa misaada ni kubwa sana kiasi cha kudiriki kuiweka siasa pembeni. Ukibanwa unajifanya eti huogopi wahisani. Blaza unaogopa wahisani na pengine unaInterest na malipo ya Dowans. Who knows??

Sasa nikikuuliza swali,Wewe sias unaiweka pembeni na kukumbatia wahisani na ICC ambayo si Mahakama kisheria.Je huogopi hasira ya Wananchi kuchukua sheria mikononi mwao na kuingia mitaani kwa nia moja ya kuwatimua viongozi wa CCM kama kule saga linaloendelea kule Tunisia??

Unaogoapa kunyimwa misaada kama kuogopa Gonjwa Sugu la kuambukiza na kudhani siasa ni cha mtoto???


Sheria inasimama kama sheria. Hivi Hujui kwamba Dowans Ililithishwa Mkataba FAKE wa Richmond??
Sheria unayoitetea ilikuwa nyumba ndogo wakati huo??
Kamwe Huwezi kupata Halali katika Haramu hiyo ni kanuni ya asili.
Chemchem moja haitoi maji barafu na maji moto kwa wakati mmoja.

Tanzania hatuna Sheria ya kuilinda kampuni ya kizushi kama DOWANS ila kuna Elite wa CCM wanao linda kampuni ya DOWANS kwa sababu zao za ubinafsi.
 
Hatuwalipi na hawatufanyi chochote. Wakilipa ama zao ama zetu. Wakati wa kuhesabiwa ndio huu.
 
watanzania wenzangu mm binafsi nimefurahishwa na kitendo cha wanasheria walioamua kwenda mahakamani kupinga hiyo tunzo cha msingi hapa tuwape moyo kwani wameonyesha uchungu walionao na nchi yetu tuko pamoja wataweza
 

Bila kuingia katika undani wa doctrine ya resjudicata na estoppel, kama hoja ni kwamba Mkataba ulikuwa haramu toka katika mizizi yake, mimi naona doctrine ya estoppel itaapply. Maana, ili kuamua kama Mkataba ulikuwa haramu toka mwanzo au la Mahakama itabidi ipitie na kupembua upya ushahidi na hata kuja na findings za kimantiki tofauti na za ICC. Kwa maoni yangu, hilo linaweza kufanywa kwa njia ya Rufaa na sio maombi. Hoja pekee wanaharakati wanaweza kutumia kwa muelekeo wako (kwa maoni yangu) ni kudai kwamba ICC walishindwa kutimia mamlaka yao properly kwa kusindwa kufanya uchunguzi wa kimahakama. Hoja hii inaweza kuzaa matunda kama kwa mujibu wa ushahidi kuna errors apparent on the face of records. Kwamba tribunal yoyote iliyofanya uchunguzi kwa makini na usahihi ingefikia maamuzi tofauti na hayo. (I stand to be corrected kama nimeingilia fani ya watu)
 
Kwamba Commercial Division of the High Court sio High Court mimi nitakuwa wa mwisho kukubari. Kwa ufahamu wangu neno Mahakama Kuu lina upana wa kutosha kumeza divisions zote za Mahakama Kuu ikiwemo Ardhi, Kazi na Biashara. Kwa mfano, kama TUZO ya ICC ingekuwa inahusiana na Ardhi, ingekuwa sahihi kama maombi ya kusajiliwa yangefanyika Mahakama Kuu, Kitengo cha Ardhi
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…