Courts : Côte d'Ivoire, Cour Suprême ; Côte d'Ivoire, Cour d'appel d'Abidjan
Linked authorities :
|
Available documents (4)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Côte d'Ivoire / 20 April 2004 / Côte d'Ivoire, Cour d'appel d'Abidjan / Société PRODEXCI v Société RAIMUND COMMODITIES INC. / Arrêt n° 486
Country Côte d'Ivoire | OHADA Court Côte d'Ivoire, Cour d'appel d'Abidjan Date 20 April 2004 Parties Société PRODEXCI v Société RAIMUND COMMODITIES INC. Case number Arrêt n° 486 Source OHADATA J-05-347, OHADATA J-08-260
Languages English Summary An agreement was entered into between a US company (RAIMUND COMMODITIES INC.) and a company registered in Côte d'Ivoire (PRODEX-CI). A dispute arose and an arbitral award was rendered by the Arbitral Chamber of the Cocoa Merchants' Association of America in favor of RAIMUND. In an order issued on 22 December 2003, the President of the Tribunal de Première Instance de Yopougon (First Instance Court of Yopougon), acting as summary judge, allowed the enforcement of the arbitral award in Côte d'Ivoire. Appealing this decision, PRODEX-CI argued that the summary judge lacked juridisction to grant the enforcement of the arbitral award pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure and that the enforcement should have been refused given that due process had been violated. In response, RAIMUND contended that the Tribunal de Première Instance de Yopougon had jurisdiction and that the applicable texts were the Uniform Act on Arbitration and the NYC, whereas the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure did not apply to the case at hand. The Cour d'appel d'Abidjan (Abidjan Court of Appeal) overturned the enforcement order and held that the Tribunal de Première Instance lacked jurisdiction. It reasoned that even though the NYC is applicable to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, RAIMUND had failed to establish that the Convention allowed summary judges to grant enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Côte d'Ivoire. It thus ruled that the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award should, in the absence of specific international treaties addressing the issue, be granted by the courts of the place where the Defendant has a domicile or residence in Côte d'Ivoire pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=584&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCôte d'Ivoire / 13 June 2002 / Côte d'Ivoire, Cour Suprême / Société SICAFA S.A. v Société J. ARON and Company (U.K.) / Arrêt n° 501
Country Côte d'Ivoire | OHADA Court Côte d'Ivoire, Cour Suprême Date 13 June 2002 Parties Société SICAFA S.A. v Société J. ARON and Company (U.K.) Case number Arrêt n° 501 Source OHADATA J-08-271 OHADATA J-09-289
Languages English Summary An arbitral award was rendered on 26 July 1996 under the aegis of the Chambre des Cafés et Poivres du Havre in favor of a UK company (J. ARON and Company). In an order issued on 7 February 1997, the Tribunal de Grande Instance du Havre (First Instance Court of Le Havre) allowed enforcement of the arbitral award in France. On 17 February 1998, the enforcement order was declared enforceable in Côte d'Ivoire by the President of the Tribunal de Première Instance d'Abidjan (First Instance Court of Abidjan). The losing party (Société Industrielle de Café et de Cacao) filed a petition before the Cour Suprême (Supreme Court) on the ground that this decision violated the France-Côte d'Ivoire Convention on judicial cooperation and the provisions of the NYC. The Cour Suprême affirmed this decision and dismissed the action, without referring to the NYC. It reasoned that the France-Côte d'Ivoire Convention on judicial cooperation sets forth the conditions that must be satisfied for a decision rendered by French Courts to be declared enforceable in Côte d'Ivoire, inter alia, that (i) the decision was rendered by a court having jurisdiction, (ii) the decision is enforceable under French law, (iii) due process was not violated, and that (iv) the decision is not contrary to the public policy of the country in which it is relied upon. It then held that SICAFA had not established that these conditions were not fulfilled in the case at hand. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=583&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDFCôte d'Ivoire / 04 December 1997 / Côte d'Ivoire, Cour Suprême / Toyota Services Afrique (TSA) v Société Promotion de Représentation Automobiles (PREMOTO) / Arrêt n°317/97
Country Côte d'Ivoire | OHADA Court Côte d'Ivoire, Cour Suprême Date 04 December 1997 Parties Toyota Services Afrique (TSA) v Société Promotion de Représentation Automobiles (PREMOTO) Case number Arrêt n°317/97 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(3) Source OHADATA J-08-179 OHADATA J-02-84
Languages English Summary On 29 August 1996, PREMOTO and TSA concluded a commercial concession agreement containing an arbitration agreement. A dispute arose and PREMOTO initiated summary proceedings before the juge des référés (summary judge), which issued an order on 2 June 1997, ordering TSA to deliver a certain amount of vehicles. The Cour d'appel d'Abidjan (Abidjan Court of Appeal) upheld the order on 1 July 1997. TSA filed a petition before the Cour Suprême (Supreme Court) on various grounds, inter alia, that the lower courts should have referred the parties to arbitration in accordance with Article II(3) NYC. The Cour Suprême affirmed the decision of the Cour d'appel d'Abidjan. It reasoned that the juge des référés had jurisdiction to order provisional measures despite the existence of an arbitration agreement. The Cour Suprême then reviewed the decision rendered by the juge des référés and held that it had not ruled on the merits and therefore Article II(3) NYC had not been breached. It then rejected the other arguments raised by TSA and dismissed the action. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=541&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Date of accession 1 February 1991 Date of entry into force 2 May 1991 Reservations No reservation
More information... https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=cmspage&pageid=11&menu=589&opac_view=-1