Burkina Faso / 13 June 2001 / Burkina Faso, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Ouagadougou / Société des Ciments d'Abidjan (SCA) v Société Burkinabè des Ciments et Matériaux (CIMAT)
| Country | Burkina Faso | OHADA |
| Court | Burkina Faso, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Ouagadougou |
| Date | 13 June 2001 |
| Parties | Société des Ciments d'Abidjan (SCA) v Société Burkinabè des Ciments et Matériaux (CIMAT) |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | VII | VI | V | III |
| Source |
OHADATA J-03-83 |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | An ICC award was rendered in Paris on 17 August 1998 in favor of Société des Ciments d'Abidjan (SCA). The award was subsequently declared enforceable in France. SCA then requested the enforcement of the arbitral award in Burkina Faso. The losing Party (CIMAT) opposed enforcement on various grounds, inter alia, (i) that the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Ouagadougou (First Instance Court of Ouagadougou) lacked jurisdiction to rule on the matter in accordance with the France-Burkina Faso Convention on Judicial Cooperation whose provisions prevail over the NYC pursuant to Article VII NYC, (ii) that there was a situation of lis pendens since it initiated proceeding before the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Ouagadougou which was still pending before the Cour d'appel d'Abidjan (Abidjan Court of Appeal), and (iii) that the arbitral award violated Burkina public policy given that the Claimant had not complied with the Burkina procedural rules in breach of Article III NYC. It also requested an adjournment of the decision on the enforcement of the award in accordance with Article VI NYC until the French Cour de cassation (Supreme Court) rendered its decision on the setting aside of the award. The Tribunal de Grande Instance de Ouagadougou granted enforcement of the arbitral award in Burkina Faso. It first dismissed CIMAT's objection on jurisdiction which was raised at a later stage of the proceeding. It then reasoned that since Burkina Faso ratified the NYC on 23 March 1987, the NYC is applicable to the case at hand. It recalled the grounds for refusing enforcement of an arbitral award listed under Article V NYC and held that a situation of lis pendens does not constitute a ground for refusing enforcement. As to CIMAT's argument that the arbitral award violates Burkina public policy, it stated that a violation of public policy requires the breach of a general principle of law considered fundamental by the State. In the present case, the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Ouagadougou concluded that the arbitral award was not contrary to a fundamental principle of law. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
