ZIMBABWE BROADCASTING CORPORATION v FLAME LILY BROADCASTING (PVT) LTD 1999 (2) ZLR 448 (H)

Flynote

Arbitration — arbitration clause in contract — effect of Arbitration Act 6 of 1996 — course of action that court must adopt

Contract — interpretation — arbitration clause — effect of

Headnote

A clause in a contract to refer a dispute to arbitration is binding on the parties and a party is not at liberty torevoke this clause at any time if he wishes to do so. There is nothing in s 4 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 that changes the common law in this regard. Sections 3 and 4 of the Arbitration Act provide that the UNCITRAL Model Law, as modified by the Act, apply to all disputes which the parties in Zimbabwe have agreed to submit to arbitration, except those matters excluded by s 4(2) of the Act. Article 8(1) of the Model Law lays down that if the parties have agreed by contract to submit any dispute that may arise to arbitration and a dispute has arisen and one of the parties requests the court to refer the matter for arbitration, the court must stay the proceedings and refer the matter to arbitration unless the agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.

The question of whether the dispute between the parties to a contract falls within the ambit of an arbitration clause is primarily a question of interpretation of the agreement and in particular the arbitration clause.

The disputes about the contract clearly fell within the arbitration clause. There was no suggestion that the agreement between the parties was null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. The agreement did not relate to any of the matters excluded by s 4(2) of the Arbitration Act. One of the parties had requested that the matter be referred to arbitration, so the court was obliged to stay the proceedings and refer the matter to arbitration.