arbitrationpublic policynatural justicecourt order
legislation
Statutes Cited
Arbitration Act
UNCITRAL Model Law
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred in holding that the arbitral award was contrary to public policy having been made in defiance of an extant court order","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Arbitrator issued final award after CHIGUMBA J's order; order was extant at time of award"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the order of costs made by the court a quo is valid","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Court a quo awarded costs on legal practitioner and client scale without reasons"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The appellants obtained an arbitral award in their favour against the respondent. The respondent successfully applied to the High Court to set aside the award on grounds that it was contrary to public policy as the arbitrator had acted in defiance of a court order and violated rules of natural justice.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases