{"issue_text":"Whether it is in the interests of justice to grant direct access to challenge Supreme Court judgment","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Applicant seeks to challenge SC 334-23 on constitutional grounds"}
{"issue_text":"Whether Supreme Court acted as court of first instance in determining public policy issue","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Public policy was raised in High Court and Supreme Court"}
{"issue_text":"Whether Supreme Court violated principle of finality of arbitral awards","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Award set aside on public policy grounds"}
{"issue_text":"Whether Supreme Court infringed applicant's constitutional rights under s 56(1) and s 69(2)","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Alleged failure to apply ZESA v Maposa principles"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant company entered into a Housing Offtake Agreement with NSSA for construction of 8000 housing units. A dispute arose leading to arbitration where the applicant was awarded US$22 million damages. The High Court registered the award but the Supreme Court set it aside on public policy grounds. The applicant sought direct access to the Constitutional Court alleging infringement of constitutional rights.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases