{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo was correct in holding that the reopening by the arbitrator of completed arbitral proceedings was not contrary to the public policy of Zimbabwe.","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Arbitrator's interim award on jurisdiction dated 2 December 2020."}
{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo was correct in splitting the interim award into an interim award on jurisdiction and an interlocutory procedural direction.","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"High Court's characterization of the arbitrator's decision."}
{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo ought to have confirmed rather than discharged the provisional order.","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Provisional order granted in a separate urgent chamber application."}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The parties entered into a contract for the supply and maintenance of elevators. The first respondent failed to complete the work on time, leading the appellant to cancel the contract. The arbitrator found the cancellation unlawful and ordered specific performance. The appellant did not comply, leading the first respondent to seek quantification of damages from the arbitrator. The arbitrator found he had jurisdiction to quantify damages, which the appellant challenged as being contrary to public policy because the arbitrator was functus officio.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases