Courts : OHADA:Cameroon, Supreme Court of Cameroon ; OHADA:Cameroon, Tribunal de Grande Instance de la Mifi ; Cameroon, High Court of Fako Division
Linked authorities :
|
Available documents (3)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Jean-Marie Tchakoua / L’Execution des Sentences Arbitrales dans l’Espace OHADA: Regard sur unce Construction Inachevée à Partir du Cadre Camerounais / 6(1) Revue Africaine des Sciences Juridiques 1 (2009) - 2009
Author(s) Jean-Marie Tchakoua Source 6(1) Revue Africaine des Sciences Juridiques 1 (2009) Subject(s) B. Articles on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in specific countries and regions (including book chapters) Jurisdictions Cameroon | OHADA Worldcat Number Worldcat : 894425440 ISBN 978-3-642-04885-2 Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=2960&opac_view=6 Cameroon / 15 May 2002 / Cameroon, High Court of Fako Division / African Petroleum Consultants (APC) v Société Nationale de Raffinage / Suit No. HCF/91/M/2001-2002
Country Cameroon | OHADA Court Cameroon, High Court of Fako Division Date 15 May 2002 Parties African Petroleum Consultants (APC) v Société Nationale de Raffinage Case number Suit No. HCF/91/M/2001-2002 Applicable NYC Provisions I | III | IV | IV(1) Source OHADATA J-02-177
Languages English Summary An award was rendered on 17 April 2002 in London in favor of African Petroleum Consultants (APC). APC petitioned the High Court of Fako Division to enforce the arbitral award in Cameroon pursuant to the NYC, the Charter of Investment in Cameroon and the OHADA Uniform Act on Arbitration. The losing party (Société Nationale de Raffinage) opposed this request by claiming that the High Court of Fako Division lacked jurisdiction. The High Court of Fako Division granted enforcement of the award in Cameroon. It first assessed whether it had jurisdiction to grant the enforcement of the arbitral award. Pursuant to Articles I and III NYC, it reasoned that given the fact that Cameroon had ratified the NYC, it was bound to recognize and enforce arbitral awards made in another Contracting State (which was the case here since the award was rendered in London, the United Kingdom being a party to the NYC) and to consider them binding and enforce them in accordance with the rules of procedure of Cameroon. It thus held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the request. It then ruled that there was no reason to refuse the recognition and enforcement of the award given that (i) there was no lack of capacity on the part of the Parties, (ii) the arbitration agreement was valid, (iii) proper notice was given to the Party against whom the award was made, (iv) the award fell within the terms of the submission to arbitration, and (v) the award did not contain decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration. Lastly, it held that APC's application satisfied the conditions set forth in Article IV NYC since the documents provided therein had been produced. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=543&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date of accession 19 February 1988 Date of entry into force 19 May 1988 Reservations No reservation
More information... https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=cmspage&pageid=11&menu=589&opac_view=-1