Easihold wants case referred for arbitration

The municipality and Easihold entered into a joint venture parking business in 2009 but on January 12 this year, council “terminated” the agreement.
Pending determination by an arbitrator, Easihold is also seeking another order interdicting council from terminating the joint venture.
According to Easihold, the agreement between the parties specified that termination could be effected after a shareholders agreement has been concluded or when the parties had mutually agreed on such a decision.
Easihold, which is challenging the cancellation, on March 16 this year filed an application for the dispute to be referred for arbitration.
The parking management firm, through its lawyer Mr Stenford Moyo of Scanlen and Holderness, argues that since it did not agree to the termination, such disputes should be referred to an arbitrator.
“As will be apparent from the provisions of clause 2 of Annexure ‘A’ (the Joint Venture Agreement) was to remain legally binding until such time as a Shareholders Agreement was concluded and came into force or until such time when the parties had reached mutual agreement to terminate the agreement.
“In the event of such mutual agreement, either party could give ninety days written notice in advance of the termination,” Easihold says.
Easihold argues that it has heavily invested in the Easipark deal and that cancelling the agreement in such a short space of time was highly prejudicial to the company.
“The applicant has invested a substantial amount of money in infrastructure expecting the contract to be one of long duration in the light of the provisions referred to above. 
“The decision has far reaching adverse financial consequences on the applicant. 
“The payback period for such investment is in the region of ten years.  The Joint Venture Agreement has been in existence for just over two years,” read the papers.
Interested parties with competing business interests to those of Easihold influenced council’s decision, the company states in its papers filed at the High Court.
Easihold contends that it was not at any stage given an opportunity of making any representations on the decision to terminate the joint venture.
Harare City Council has refused to submit to arbitration as required by the agreement, Easihold says.
Easipark stated in the application that the cancellation publicity had an effect of tarnishing the image and reputation of the company as a parking management company.
It affects Easihold’s brand name.
Mr James Mutizwa of Chihambakwe, Mutizwa and Company, who represents council, refused to comment for fear of prejudicing some on-going negotiations between the parties.
“Council has not yet filed its response but I am not able to comment now for fear of prejudicing some negotiations between the parties.
“There are some on-going ‘without prejudice negotiations’ between the parties. Commenting on the issue might prejudice the talks,” said Mr Mutizwa.