Judgment of the Court. 1. The Court shall consider and determine every reference made to it pursuant to this Treaty in accordance with the Rules of Court, and shall deliver in public session a reasoned judgment which, subject to the provisions of the said Rules as to review, shall be final and conclusive and not open to appeal: Provided that, if the Court considers that in the special circumstances of the case it is undesirable that its judgment be delivered in open Court, the Court may make an order to that effect and deliver its judgment before the parties privately.
Judgment of the Court. The present case is an appeal by Alcon International Limited, a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Kenya, against the decision of the First Instance Division of the Court in Reference No. 6 of 2010. The Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda; the Attorney-General of the Republic of Uganda; and the Registrar of the High Court of Uganda are the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, respectively. The substance of the dispute between the Parties as placed before the court below is as follows: The Appellant company was contracted by the National Social Security Fund, Uganda (NSSF) to construct ‘Workers House’, in Kampala. NSSF terminated the agreement and this set in motion arbitration proceedings under the contract. The Appellant was the successful party in the arbitration proceedings and was awarded US $8,858,469.97. This arbitral award is being contested in the courts in Uganda and the matter is now before the Supreme Court as Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2009, in which NSSF wants to set aside the arbitral award. While the matter is being litigated in the courts in Uganda, the Appellant herein instituted Reference No. 6 of 2010 in the First Instance Division against the above-mentioned Respondents seeking the following reliefs –
Judgment of the Court. A Leave to appeal is granted (Air New Zealand Limited v New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association Incorporated [2016] NZCA 131). B The approved question is should the Court of Appeal have dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction? Solicitors: New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association Incorporated, Manukau for Applicant Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, Auckland for Appellant
Judgment of the Court. A The respondent must pay the appellant costs in this Court of $22,500 plus usual disbursements. B The costs award made in the Court of Appeal is quashed. The appellant is awarded costs in that Court on a band A basis together with usual disbursements. C The appellant is awarded costs in the High Court on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. REASONS (Given by Xxxxx Xxxxxx X)
Judgment of the Court. The Parties agree to accept the Judgment of the Court given pursuant to this Special Agreement as final and binding upon them.
Judgment of the Court. The present case is an appeal by Alcon International Limited, a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Kenya, Downloaded from xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx. Use is subject to terms and conditions. See xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx/xxxxx.xxx against the decision of the First Instance Division of the Court in Reference No. 6 of 2010. The Standard Chartered Bank of Uganda; the Attorney-General of the Republic of Uganda; and the Registrar of the High Court of Uganda are the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, respectively. The substance of the dispute between the Parties as placed before the court below is as follows: The Appellant company was contracted by the National Social Security Fund, Uganda (NSSF) to construct ‘Workers House’, in Kampala. NSSF terminated the agreement and this set in motion arbitration proceedings under the contract. The Appellant was the successful party in the arbitration proceedings and was awarded US $8,858,469.97. This arbitral award is being contested in the courts in Uganda and the matter is now before the Supreme Court as Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2009, in which NSSF wants to set aside the arbitral award. While the matter is being litigated in the courts in Uganda, the Appellant herein instituted Reference No. 6 of 2010 in the First Instance Division against the above-mentioned Respondents seeking the following reliefs –
