POWERTEL Communications has successfully filed an application seeking to appoint an arbitrator in its dispute with Dandemutande Investments after the termination of an internet supply agreement Powertel had approached the High Court seeking an order to appoint an arbitrator to preside over the dispute with Dandemutande following their failure to agree on the appointment According to court papers, in 2010, the parties entered into an Internet Capacity Purchase Agreement and sometime in 2017, a dispute arose between the parties, emanating from Powertel’s decision to terminate the agreement In 2018, the parties agreed to appoint retired judge Justice Vernanda Ziyambi as the arbitrator to preside over the dispute with Dandemutande as the claimant However, the arbitration process did not materialise as Dandemutande failed to file its claim In 2019, the arbitrator communicated to the parties, indicating that it had been over a year since documents were to be filed, adding that the impression was that the matter had been abandoned Justice Ziyambi then indicated that she would be unavailable due to other engagements In 2023, Powertel sought appointment of a new arbitrator from the Commercial Arbitration Centre and with one Whatman being appointed Dandemutande objected to this appointment, arguing that Powertel had violated clause 27 of their agreement by unilaterally seeking the appointment of the arbitrator Whatman upheld the objection, and a final award was issued by consent, terminating those proceedings on the basis that the matter was not properly before the arbitrator Powertel argued that the parties failed to reach a consensus, necessitating a court application However, Dandemutande argued that Powertel’s claim was a debt and that, in terms of the Prescription Act, that claim had prescribed because more than three years had elapsed from the time the parties failed to agree on an arbitrator, the application was filed in 2024 In response, Powertel argued that a preliminary point can only be raised before an arbitrator seized with the main dispute between the parties It also argued that the court had not filed its claim against Dandemutande, but was seeking recourse in terms of Article 11(4) of the Arbitration Act Powertel’s claim against Dandemutande, which is the basis of the dispute between them, concerns the alleged failure by Dandemutande to settle a debt due in terms of an agreement Justice Maxwell Takuva said the court was not seized with that particular claim or the dispute between the parties, but the appointment of an arbitrator to preside over their dispute The judge said a preliminary point of law was one that, if properly taken in an application or action, is capable of disposing of a matter without the need for the court to delve into the merits of the matter Powertel had sought the appointment of a sole arbitrator by the court on the recommendation of the chairman of the Commercial Arbitration Centre in Harare Dandemutande, however, contended that such a procedure deprives it of an opportunity to challenge the credentials of the arbitrator It argued that, therefore, the relief sought is not competent because it arrogates powers to recommend an arbitrator to the Commercial Arbitration Centre, violating the procedure laid down by statute Source: NewsDay Zimbabwe All Zim News All Zim News is a central hub for all things Zimbabwean, curating news from across the country so no story is missed Alongside aggregation, our team of nationwide reporters provides real-time, on-the-ground coverage Stay informed and connected — reach us at admin@allzimnews.com. 📰 Original Source: Newsday 🔗 Read Full Article at Source This article was aggregated by AllZimNews.com from trusted Zimbabwean news sources 🌍 Bringing you comprehensive Zimbabwe news coverage
Image from Internet suppliers take dispute to the High Courtas court grants Powertel application for arbitrator 