ArbitrationSetting aside awardExcess of mandateArticle 34(2)(iii)Commercial Arbitration CentreLand Utilisation and Debt Repayment Agreement
Tags
ArbitrationCommercial arbitrationSetting aside arbitral awardExcess of jurisdiction
legislation
Statutes Cited
Arbitration Act
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Did the arbitrator exceed the scope of his authority by ordering renegotiation and adding new terms not within the submission, thereby violating Article 34(2)(iii)?","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Narrow submission limited to extant and breach issues; arbitrator ordered renegotiation and new termination clauses"}
{"issue_text":"Do the respondent’s defences of lack of counsel, undue hardship, or unjust enrichment bar relief under Article 34(2)(iii)?","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Respondent appeared in person; claims hardship and enrichment"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant and respondent entered into a ten-year Land Utilisation and Debt Repayment Agreement whereby the applicant managed the respondent’s farm and repaid her US$340,000 CBZ Bank loan. After the debt was repaid within three years, the respondent demanded vacation and interfered with operations. The applicant referred a narrow dispute to arbitration: whether the Agreement remained extant and whether the respondent was in breach. The arbitrator declared the Agreement extant but also ordered renegotiation and inserted new termination provisions. The applicant seeks to set aside those paragraphs as beyond the submission.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases