{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo considered the issues that were placed before it.","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The court a quo's failure to address grounds for setting aside the arbitral award."}
{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred in concluding that the failure to protest the arbitrator's jurisdiction barred the raising of the issue in an application brought in terms of s 34 (2) of the Arbitration Act.","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"The appellant's challenge to the arbitrator's jurisdiction."}
{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred in concluding that the appellant had legal capacity to contract.","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"The appellant's status as a Fund under the Manpower Planning and Development Act."}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The appellant, a statutory fund, engaged the first respondent to construct its head office. Due to hyperinflation, the project was suspended and later repriced in US Dollars. A dispute arose over payment, which was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator awarded payment in US or Zimbabwe Dollars at the prevailing interbank rate. The appellant applied to set aside the award, arguing lack of capacity and public policy violations, but the High Court dismissed the application.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases