CLOUT
  index.

A dispute between two parties had been referred to arbitration in 1990. The arbitrator issued his award in the matter in 1991. It was for an amount of some $700.000, plus interest which was to be calculated with effect from 1989.

The successful party applied to the High Court under article 35 MAL for the recognition and enforcement of the award.

The application was opposed under article 36 MAL on the basis that the award was contrary to public policy, since it contravened the in duplum (the double) rule, which applies in terms of the Common Law of Zimbabwe and under which interest ceases to run when it equals the capital sum owing.

The High Court held that if the award were to be taken literally, i. e. by calculating interest with effect from 1989 to the date of the award, the sum payable in terms of the award would amount to over $17 million. This result would be in conflict with the in duplum rule and would be contrary to public policy.

However, the High Court found that the arbitrator's award was capable of being interpreted as being impliedly subject to the in duplum rule; and it could be recognized and enforced accordingly.

The High Court further ruled that interest beyond the double of the capital sum did not run during the arbitration proceedings, i.e. the in duplum rule was not suspended by the commencement of arbitration proceedings.

In the result, the award was recognized and enforced by the High Court with interest calculated on the capital sum until it reached the double.

Interest would also run, on the double, from the date of the award to the date of payment provided that once again, it did not breach the in duplum rule.

Reproduced on this web site (www.interarb.com) with the kind permission of the United Nations, New York.
Database, typography, layout, etc. © interarb, 2003.