admin
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
Zimbabwe National Water Authority (Zinwa) attempt to reverse an arbitration ruling, which ordered them to pay a service provider, Pellavin Marketing, for branding services rendered in January 2022, has been rejected by the High Court.
The water authority had attempted to block the arbitration award issued by Ms Tecla Mapota in May, this year, claiming she lacked jurisdiction over the matter. Apparently, the agreement between Zinwa and Pellavin included an arbitration clause, but Zinwa never signed the written agreement, despite receiving it in June 2022.
After Pellavin delivered the services, the water authority refused to pay, leading to arbitration. Zinwa’s arguments did not meet these criteria, and the High Court upheld the arbitration ruling.
Ms Mapota had ruled that she had jurisdiction to hear the matter, stating that the water authority had waived its right to file further submissions on the preliminary point. She also found that there was an agreement between Zinwa and Pellavin, despite the agreement being unsigned.
But through its lawyer, Zinwa argued that Ms Mapota erred in law by dismissing the challenge to her jurisdiction and claimed that the parties were still negotiating and had not finalised the agreement terms.
However, Pellavin countered that there was a valid agreement, and services were rendered based on that agreement. They also supported Ms Mapota’s finding that Zinwa waived its right to reply.
It was on that basis that in the present dispute, High Court judge, Justice Faith Mushure ruled in favour of Pellavin. In her ruling, Justice Mushure agreed that Ms Mapota’s finding was solid, and Zinwa could not deny the contract’s arbitration clause.
She found no violation of public policy in Ms Mapota’s ruling. “The decision of Ms Mapota cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be in violation of the public policy of Zimbabwe,” she said.
“Her reasoning cannot be faulted. The fact that the applicant does not agree with her reasoning does not give the ruling the complexion of a decision that is contrary to public policy.”
Justice Mushure ruled that a missing signature does not automatically invalidate a contract or imply none existed.
The court also considered prior dealings between Zinwa and Pellavin, assuming the unsigned agreement reflected their true intentions. In general, overturning an arbitration ruling in court is extremely difficult.
Arbitration awards can only be set aside under limited circumstances, such as being contrary to public policy or dealing with a dispute not contemplated by the arbitration agreement.
This ruling highlights the importance of understanding contract law and the implications of unsigned agreements in business dealings.
Online Reporter