{"issue_text":"Whether the arbitral award is contrary to public policy of Zimbabwe by ignoring binding precedent","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Arbitrator ignored Mushayakarara precedent; Award contradicted binding High Court and Supreme Court decisions"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the arbitrator's finding that \"the contract makes no mention of the currency in which payment is to be effected\" is sustainable given Clause 9.3","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Clause 9.3 refers to schedules with figures denominated in US dollars; Arbitrator found contract silent on currency"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the award meets the test for violation of public policy as established in Maposa case","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Award must violate fundamental principle of law/morality/justice; Must be palpably inequitable and outrageous"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant, a tobacco merchant, advanced US dollar funds to the first respondent grower under a contract requiring repayment in US dollars. After SI 33/2019 converted US dollar obligations to RTGS at 1:1, a dispute arose over currency of repayment. The arbitrator ruled that pre-22 February 2019 debts were converted to RTGS at 1:1 and post-22 February debts were payable in Zimbabwe dollars at interbank rate. The applicant sought to set aside this award as contrary to public policy, citing a prior High Court decision (Mushayakarara) holding such repayments must be in US dollars.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases