News Detail

Counsel for Independent Power Tanzania Limited (IPTL) and Pan African Power Solution Limited (PAP) on Thursday asked the High Court to stop the Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited and two others, from enforcing a foreign decision for recalculation of power tariffs.

The decision complained of was issued by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) on February 12, this year, with effect of requiring the State-owned Tanzania Electric Supply Company (Tanesco) to sit with the bank and recalculate the tariffs in question.

"It goes without saying that there will be defeat of justice if the first respondent (bank) is allowed to sit with the third respondent (Tanesco) and determine receivables payable to the applicants (IPTL and PAP)," counsel Joseph Makandege told Judge Fauz Twaib.

He was presenting submissions on behalf of his co-advocates, Melckzedeck Lutema and Joseph Sungwa, in support of an application for injunction the two applicants filed before the court pending hearing and determination of the main case against the respondents. Another respondent in the matter is a Tanzanian advocate, Martha Kaveni Renju, who allegedly been presenting herself as an agent with the bank and an administrator receiver of IPTL.

The respondents are represented by Advocate Gaspar Nyika and British lawyer Charles Morison. In the main case, the applicants are seeking payments of 3,240,000,000 US dollars (about 5.3tr/-) for alleged fraud and declaration orders that the Bank and Ms Renju are not a creditor and administrator receiver of IPTL, respectively.

Advancing reasons to support the application, Mr Makandege told the judge that there were serious issues the applicants have raised in the main suit, which would be determined by the court and that the court's intervention on the matter was necessary to safeguard their interests.

On the balance of convenience, he submitted, the applicants stand to suffer greater mischief and hardship than that of the respondents if the injunctive order would not be granted.He alleged that one of the serious questions involved fraud on the respondent in procuring the decision. "This is a serious question because it goes to the root of whatever rights and decision that the first respondent seeks to enforce and execute against the applicants," the advocate submitted. He added, "If this court finds that the first respondent engaged in fraud it will be serious as the respondent will have to benefit from their own wrong doing."

Mr Makandege also pointed another serious issue involving abuse of court process by the respondents in the matter. According to him, the respondents were barred by Tanzanian law to enforce or domesticate a foreign decision that expressly unlawfully supersedes or circumvents a validly existing decision of a Tanzanian court that was issued concerning the same subject matter.

"The implementation of the ICSID decision is an abuse of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the United Republic of Tanzania as well as the process, independence, powers and integrity of the Tanzanian courts," the advocate told the court.

Source-On Request