NAME OF THE CASE
ZIMSEC v Chinhengo& Another (HH 160-18)
NAME OF THE COURT
CITY AND COUNTRY
Arbitral award, setting aside, public policy
In 2011, the second respondent won a tender for the binding of applicant’s ‘O’ Level and ‘A’ level result slips for the years 2004 to 2010. Subsequent to that, a contract was entered into between applicant and second respondent. In terms of the contract, the price was fixed at $71 620.50 for the binding exercise which was agreed to take 21 days. Applicant only managed to provide all the batches in 2014. By that time, applicant had paid $69 255.00 leaving a balance of $2 365.85 in terms of the contracts. However the second respondent raised invoices which had a balance of $43 708.35 for a new figure of $112 963.35. The applicant refused to pay the revised figure but offered to pay $2 365.85. The parties declared a dispute and the matter was referred for arbitration where the arbitrator ordered that the applicant pay to the second respondent the sum of $18 129.80 including VAT, for the additional costs occasioned by the extension of the Agreement signed on 18 January 2012 from March 2012 to August 2014 and that the applicant pay to the second respondent the sum of $2 365.85 including VAT, being outstanding balance of the contract price. Applicant now seeks to set aside the first part of the arbitral award ordering it to pay $18 129.80, arguing that such award is contrary to public policy. The questions presented before the court were whether or not the arbitrator had failed to interpret the contact of the parties.
- The court held that the arbitrator erred by awarding damages which were not proven. It went on to say that when setting aside arbitral awards, the court had to be satisfied that there was faultiness or incorrectness in the handing down of the arbitral award. In this case however, the judge said it was beyond mere faultiness thus the award given by the arbitrator was set aside.