Zimbabwe Cricket v (1) Harare Sports Club (2) Advocate Daniel Tivadar (Arbitrator)

Key Issues

• {"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred in finding the arbitral award was not susceptible to being set aside under Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law.","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The arbitrator's decision on rent and the High Court's dismissal of the setting aside application."}
• {"issue_text":"Whether the arbitral award is in conflict with the public policy of Zimbabwe.","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The arbitrator's determination of rent and the application of the Rent Regulations."}
• {"issue_text":"Whether the High Court had the authority to delegate the appointment of an arbitrator to the Commercial Arbitration Centre.","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no (not appealed against)","related_facts":"The High Court's order directing the Centre to appoint the arbitrator."}
• {"issue_text":"Whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction to hear the dispute.","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The arbitrator's ruling on his own jurisdiction and the appellant's failure to seek High Court review."}

Background