{"issue_text":"Whether the registration of the arbitral award would be contrary to public policy where respondent claims to have fully satisfied the award","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Payment of ZW$435,422-43 on 9 August 2019, respondent's argument about one-to-one conversion"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the debt existed on the effective date of 22 February 2019 for purposes of one-to-one conversion","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Award made on 6 June 2019, admission of liability on 18 January 2018 without specific amount"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
Applicants, holders of mining claims known as the Pangolin claims, discovered that respondent had encroached and removed soil containing chrome ore in 2015. The matter was referred to arbitration by consent order, resulting in an award of US$378,628-20. Respondent paid ZW$435,422-43 at a one-to-one conversion rate, which applicants rejected, seeking payment at interbank rate.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases