{"issue_text":"Whether the court should set aside a partial arbitral award on the grounds that it is contrary to public policy","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The partial arbitral award on currency interpretation; applicant's allegation of prejudice to Zimbabwe"}
{"issue_text":"Whether a superior court should interfere with uncompleted proceedings of an inferior tribunal","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The arbitration proceedings are ongoing as other issues remain unresolved"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the applicant has standing to raise public policy arguments on behalf of Zimbabwe","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Applicant's founding affidavit focuses on prejudice to Zimbabwe rather than to itself"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant and the first respondent concluded a lease agreement in 2017 for the lease of furnaces for ferrochrome production. Following the promulgation of currency regulations in 2019, a dispute arose regarding the conversion of rental obligations from US dollars to Zimbabwe dollars. The parties referred the dispute to an arbitrator, who delivered a partial arbitral award on the currency interpretation issue. The applicant sought to set aside this partial award, arguing it was contrary to public policy.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases