Mahakama Kuu ya Tanzania kuzuia malipo kwa DOWANS?

[VoiceOfReason]

Am not going to pay a f@$%&*@#g dime!

Funny thing is hata hawatakuuliza wakati wa kulipa... watalipa even without saying anything..... ila makali yake utayafeel for a very long time after.

 

[M-mbabe]

Funny thing is hata hawatakuuliza wakati wa kulipa... watalipa even without saying anything..... ila makali yake utayafeel for a very long time after.

I know....that's why am so f$%^&>?*~g angry.....I could kill someone!!
I have lost my reasoning ability because everything that's happening now is f$%^&>?*~g unreasonable!

All these legal exchanges going on in here only make me sick to my tummy because all these lawyers always have a way of circumventing the same law that their profession is named after! Law is insensible and senseless!!
Damn it!!

Sorry mods, I have no other way of expressing how I feel right now!!!

 

[LAT]

Rostam Aziz ..... huyu anastahili malipo ya fedha hizi 185b.... na siyo vingine

 

[Lenana]

Hii story inadhihirisha wazi kuwa Serikali ya Tanzania kumbe ina kila sababu ya kutowalipa Dowans. Tatizo ninaliona mimi ni kuwa Othman wa Usalama wa Taifa anaweza kumuagiza mdogo wake Othman Chande Jaji Mkuu amalize issue na mahakama kuu waruhusu Dowans walipwe fasta.

c.v please and show how they are related with c.j

 

[Sonara]

Don`t be too naive you people Please !please ! CCM na serekali yake wapo very very advance ,hizo kauli za mahakama kuu ni moja kati ya khiliba zao wanakuchezeni shere na wengi wenu mnaingia kichwa kichwa watu wazima na akili zenu wengine mnaitwa baba au mume wangu mkiwa majumbani

 

[Mag3]

Mkuu, kifungu hicho hakiwezi kuwepo kwenye ICC rules maana zenyewe ni general na si particular kwa hiyo haziwezi kuzungumzia sheria za nchi yeyote. Naomba utueleze ni kifungu gani kifungu hicho kinapatikana?

Amandla.....

Mkuu, naona hatupitii kwa umakini attachments tulizoletewa hapa na wadau mbali mbali k.m Invisible na Mwanakijiji. Hebu cheki hii sehemu tu ya Commencement of Arbitration na terms of settlement iliyotumika kwenye uamuzi huu tunaouongelea. Angalia kifungu 14.1 (b) hapa chini.

​

 

[RealMan]

Jamani hii kitu mie naona inazidi kutuchanganya zaidi kadri siku zinavyokwenda.

Kwanza awali Tanesco walikuwa wanaonelea kwenda mbele ili wasilipe hii kitu. After sometime Tanesco wako kimya anayeongea ni kiranja mkuu na mkalimani wake werema.
Nachishindwa keilewa hasa nikisoma mawazo ya wanaJF hapa, wanazungumzia Tanzania Vs Dowans. Kwani aliyeshtakiwa ni URT????
Nijuavyo mimi kesi ilikuwa Tanasco Vs Dowans na kama Tanesco watagoma kulipa, je Dowans wanaweza kuomba kukamata mali za URT zilizoko nje???

Jamani kama sheria haiwezi kutupa haki kwa nini tusiwatafute Alshabab watusaidie. Badala ya kulipuka na watu maskini wa Mungu wasio na hatia, analipukia pale Caspian.

 

[Fundi Mchundo]

Mkuu, naona hatupitii kwa umakini attachments tulizoletewa hapa na wadau mbali mbali k.m Invisible na Mwanakijiji. Hebu cheki hii sehemu tu ya Commencement of Arbitration na terms of settlement iliyotumika kwenye uamuzi huu tunaouongelea. Angalia kifungu 14.1 (b) hapa chini.

View attachment 19640
​

Mkuu, hapana sio hivi. Hiki ni kipengele cha mkataba kati Richmond(?) na Tanesco na si sehemu za ICC rules. ICC rules haziwezi kuwepo katika mkataba baina ya watu wawili isipokuwa kipengele (arbitral clause) kinachosema kuwa kama patatokea magomvi basi arbitration itafanyika kwa msingi wa taratibu za ICC. ICC rules ni universal kwamba zinaweza kutumika popote duniani wakati mkataba ni particular kati ya wahusika na unakuwa governed na sheria za nchi husika. Arbitrators ni lazima waangalie na wa-quote arbitral clause ambayo inawapa haki ku-mediate katika dispute na nadhani ndicho kilichofanyika hapa. Sidhani kama Arbitrators huwa wanaamua wapi arbitration itafanyika na sheria zipi zitakazotawala, hii inakuwepo katika arbitral clause ya mkataba baina ya wahusika. I stand to be corrected.

Amandla......

 

[mjengwa-halifa]

Fundi Mchundo nafikiri upo sahii katika hilo. inabidi tuelewe jambo moja kuna pande mbili kuu katika hili jambo nazo ni Dowan na Tanesco. Pande mbili hizi ndio zaidi zinafungwa na sheria za ICC na makubaliano waliyokubaliana kabla ya ICC kukaa kikao.

Tunaona kwamba kabla ICC kukaa kikao pande mbili hizi zinakubaliana kwanza jinsi kikao kitavyoendeshwa. Na hapa ndipo Tanesco walipoingia mkenge na hivyo vipengele walivyokubaliana. Hukiachana na makubaliano kati ya Tanesco na Dowan pia ICC itaendesha kikao kwa kufuata sheria za ICC. Section 14 inazungumzia yote hayo mawili, lakini la muhimu hapa ni kama kutatokea na kutokuelewana katika makubaliano yao basi ICC itatumia sheria za ICC kutatua kutokuelewana huko. Lakini kusema kwamba heti kipengele cha 14.1 (b) ni sehemu ya sheria za ICC si sawa. Kipengele 14.1 paka 14.2 ni makubaliano kati ya Tanesco na Dowan na sio sheria za ICC. I stand to be corrected also.

Sasa sehemu muhimu ya kujadili ni hii ya makubaliano kati ya Tanesco na Dowan na hasa kipengele cha 14.1 (b) cha makubaliano yao. Swali je kama kipengele hicho ICC katika ruling yao waliona kwamba mkataba kati ya Tanenco na Dowan ulikuwa halali wakati tunajua kabisa kwa sheria za Tanzania watakuwa wamevinja sheria ya 2004 basi hapa kuna tatizo. Lakini Tanesco katika hili hawana ujanja wa kupinga maamuzi yoyote ya ICC kwa sababu walishakubali kipengele cha 14.1 (d).

Kwa hayo niliyoyasema hapo juu utaona hakuna ujanja tena kilichobaki ni kulipa tu na kuanza kubanana wenyewe kwa wenyewe kwa nini tulifika hapa tulipofikia.

Lakini kuna upande wa tatu ambao umejificha kidogo. Upande huo ni mahakama yetu. "Article 27 Scrutiny of the award by the court" inasema mambo kadhaa na kumalizia "No award shall be rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal untill it has been approved by the Court as to its form". Sasa mimi hapa nimetoka kapa katika kung'amua, nini inamaanisha hasa mnaweza kusaidia. Lakini naona kama kuna kanafasi kwa mahakama yetu kusaidia au ilikuwa na uwezo wa kusaidia. Katika hili la mahakama yetu na uwezo wake kisheria katika suala hili zima angalia majibu ya AG Werema aliyoyatoa wakati anajibu maswali yamwandishi wa gazeti la mwananchi "Mimi kama Mwanasheria Mkuu wa Serikali nimeisoma hukumu hiyo kwa makini na nimeridhika nayo kuwa iko sawa," alisema Jaji Werema."

sasa swali la kujiuliza kama asingeridhika nayo angefanya nini? Na hapo ndipo kwenye hoja ya msingi kwamba Tanesco hawana tena ujanja na hukumu ya Dowan by ICC lakini je mahakama zetu pia hazina ujanja?

 

[Fundi Mchundo]

Lakini kuna upande wa tatu ambao umejificha kidogo. Upande huo ni mahakama yetu. "Article 27 Scrutiny of the award by the court" inasema mambo kadhaa na kumalizia "No award shall be rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal untill it has been approved by the Court as to its form".

Sasa mimi hapa nimetoka kapa katika kung'amua, nini inamaanisha hasa mnaweza kusaidia. Lakini naona kama kuna kanafasi kwa mahakama yetu kusaidia au ilikuwa na uwezo wa kusaidia. Katika hili la mahakama yetu na uwezo wake kisheria katika suala hili zima angalia majibu ya AG Werema aliyoyatoa wakati anajibu maswali yamwandishi wa gazeti la mwananchi "Mimi kama Mwanasheria Mkuu wa Serikali nimeisoma hukumu hiyo kwa makini na nimeridhika nayo kuwa iko sawa," alisema Jaji Werema."

Mkuu Mjengwa-Halifa. Nadhani Court inayozungumziwa hapa ni International COURT of Arbitration ambayo ni sehemu huru ya International Chamber of Commerce. Arbitrators wakishafikia maamuzi yao wanayapeleka kwa hawa jamaa ambao wanayapitia kama yanaendana na regulations zao (form). Court hii haina mamlaka ya kubadilisha "substance" ya uamuzi wa arbitrators lakini wanaweza kuwarudishia kama hawaridhiki na ilivyokuwa formulated.

Baada ya hawa kuridhika, award inapelekwa kwenye secretariat ambayo ndiyo inayowajibika kuwafahamisha wahusika. Court yetu inahusika tu katika "ku-enforce award" na si kingine. Wao hawana mandate ya kurekebisha/kukataa form au substance ya award. Wanachoweza kufanya ni kukataa kui-enforce katika jurisdiction yake.

Hii, hata hivyo haina maana kuwa claimant anazuiwa kutafuta satisfaction sehemu nyingine kwa vile award inabaki kuwa live whether enforced or not. Wakifanya hivyo, tutaingia tena gharama kibao kwenda kutetea kwa nini asset zetu zisiwe attached. Watakaoshinda kwenye scenario hiyo ni wanasheria peke yao, hao hao waliotuingiza kwenye mkenge!

Nadhani AG ali-misspeak. Kuridhika au kutoridhika kwake hakuna nafasi hapa. Hata asingeridhika, hana recourse bali kukubali uamuzi wa arbitrators.

Amandla.....

 

[Mdondoaji]

Mkuu Mjengwa-Halifa. Nadhani Court inayozungumziwa hapa ni International COURT of Arbitration ambayo ni sehemu huru ya International Chamber of Commerce. Arbitrators wakishafikia maamuzi yao wanayapeleka kwa hawa jamaa ambao wanayapitia kama yanaendana na regulations zao (form). Court hii haina mamlaka ya kubadilisha "substance" ya uamuzi wa arbitrators lakini wanaweza kuwarudishia kama hawaridhiki na ilivyokuwa formulated.

Baada ya hawa kuridhika, award inapelekwa kwenye secretariat ambayo ndiyo inayowajibika kuwafahamisha wahusika. Court yetu inahusika tu katika "ku-enforce award" na si kingine. Wao hawana mandate ya kurekebisha/kukataa form au substance ya award. Wanachoweza kufanya ni kukataa kui-enforce katika jurisdiction yake.

Hii, hata hivyo haina maana kuwa claimant anazuiwa kutafuta satisfaction sehemu nyingine kwa vile award inabaki kuwa live whether enforced or not. Wakifanya hivyo, tutaingia tena gharama kibao kwenda kutetea kwa nini asset zetu zisiwe attached. Watakaoshinda kwenye scenario hiyo ni wanasheria peke yao, hao hao waliotuingiza kwenye mkenge!

Nadhani AG ali-misspeak. Kuridhika au kutoridhika kwake hakuna nafasi hapa. Hata asingeridhika, hana recourse bali kukubali uamuzi wa arbitrators.

Amandla.....

Mkuu mie nilikaa kimya maana niliisoma hii kesi yote kwa umakini nikairudia mara mbili ndipo nilipoandika hapa JF kiufupi hapa njia ni kufungua kesi nyengine mahakamani dhidi ya Dowans kwa udanganyifu tukitegemea out of court settlement ili tuweze kunegotiate. Mengineyo kuhusu kutengua huo uamuzi ni either watu wanajisemea tu kwa kufurahisha kijiwe au kushauri watu kwa siasa. Kumbukeni jamani hii ni arbitral case ambapo maamuzi yake mengi ni final.

Njia ya kutengua uamuzi huu ni iwapo mmoja ya judge kwenye hiyo kesi atakuwa amepokea rushwa ya namna fulani hebu tizameni hii kesi iliyofanyika France Court of Appeal 12 February 2009.

Arbitration - France

Court of Appeal Sets Aside ICC Award as Arbitrator Lacked Independence

April 23 2009

Introduction

In a February 2009 decision(1) the Paris Court of Appeal ruled that the duties of independence and impartiality are "the very essence of the arbitral function". The duty of independence is generally considered to relate to issues that may arise during the course of the arbitrator's relationship - whether on a financial or other level - with one of the parties. By contrast, impartiality can be described as a state of mind. These are essential duties and in order to ensure compliance, arbitrators are usually required to disclose any fact or circumstance that may affect their judgment and raise reasonable doubts in the parties' minds as to their independence and impartiality. In this case, the court of appeal discussed the scope of the duty to disclose, as applicable to an arbitrator employed by an international law firm, and illustrated what can be deemed to amount to a lack of independence under French arbitration law.
Facts
An Italian company, Tecnimont SpA, and a Greek company, J&P Avax, entered into an agreement for the construction of a propylene plant in Greece. Tecnimont subsequently brought arbitral proceedings against Avax under the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules of Arbitration, pursuant to the arbitration clause contained in the agreement.
Each party appointed an arbitrator. The two party-nominated arbitrators then appointed a chairman, who was employed by the Paris office of an international law firm.
In a statement of independence dated October 30 2002, the chairman disclosed that his firm's Washington DC and Milan offices had represented Tecnimont's parent company, Edison, in a matter which was then closed. He asserted that he had never worked for this client.
On November 12 2002 the secretary general of the International Court of Arbitration of the ICC confirmed the chairman's nomination.
In May 2007 Avax discovered at a conference in London that the chairman had not disclosed the full extent of his firm's relationship with Tecnimont, and in July 2007, it asked the chairman to clarify the matter.
Initial Proceedings
On September 14 2007 Avax challenged the chairman's appointment before the ICC court, alleging a lack of independence.
On October 26 2007 the ICC court dismissed the challenge. Avax pursued the arbitration proceedings without prejudice to its position regarding the chairman's lack of independence.
On December 10 2007 the arbitral tribunal rendered a final award on the merits of the dispute.
Meanwhile, between November 2007 and January 2008 Avax had requested that the chairman provide more information on his firm's relationship with Tecnimont. By the end of March 2008 Avax had established that:

• the firm had acted for Tecnimont's parent company, Edison, in April 2002 (ie, six months before the chairman's appointment) - Edison had remained a client of the firm until 2005;
• the firm had advised Tecnimont, a consortium formed by Tecnimont and one of its wholly-owned subsidiaries (Sofragaz) in 2005;
• the firm's Paris office had represented Sofragaz before the French courts since 2004, in a case that was still pending when the arbitration proceedings commenced; and
• the firm's Paris office had advised Sofragaz on a tax issue arising from the France-Greece tax treaty.

The chairman resigned from the tribunal and was replaced for the quantum phase of the proceedings.
Avax subsequently brought an action to set aside the award before the court of appeal, pursuant to Article 1502(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the grounds that the arbitral tribunal had been irregularly constituted due to the chairman's lack of independence.
Avax contended that the award should be set aside because the chairman had failed to comply with his duty to disclose relevant facts or circumstances that might have given rise to doubts as to his independence. Avax also argued that the award should be set aside because the relationship between the chairman's firm and Tecnimont showed that the chairman lacked independence.
Tecnimont argued that Avax's claim was inadmissible, given that the chairman's challenge had been dismissed by the ICC court for being time-barred, pursuant to Article 11 of the ICC rules and because Avax had failed to make a new challenge after discovering additional facts indicating a lack of independence following the dismissal of the first challenge. Tecnimont also argued that the chairman could not have been aware of the conflict of interest, given his firm's size and the global nature of its work.
Court of Appeal Decision
The court considered that Avax's action to set aside the award was admissible because it had reserved the right to make such a claim after its first challenge had been dismissed by the ICC court and had obtained knowledge of the full details of the situation only after the award had been rendered.
The court of appeal held that:

"an arbitrator must disclose any facts or circumstances that may affect his [or her] judgment and raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the parties as to his [or her] independence and impartiality, which are... the very essence of his [or her] adjudicative function..."
​

"The bond of trust existing between parties and arbitrators must be preserved and parties must be kept informed from the time of their appointment and throughout the arbitration proceedings of facts or circumstances which, in their eyes, could have an impact on the judgment of the arbitrator and which may affect his [or her] independence."
​

Finally, the court considered that, taken as a whole, the services rendered by the chairman's firm to Tecnimont, its subsidiary and its parent company amounted to a conflict of interest between the chairman of the arbitral tribunal and one of the parties to the arbitration proceedings.
As a result, the court set aside the ICC award on the grounds relied upon by Avax.
Comment
The independence of arbitrators is often defined by the French courts as an essential component of their judicial function, given that from the time of their appointment, they assume the status of a judge, which excludes any relationship of dependence with the parties. The courts consider that if a party wishes to challenge an arbitrator's independence, it must show that the arbitrator's judgement may be affected by intellectual or material ties, which create a definite risk of bias in favour of one of the parties to the arbitration.(2)
The purpose of the duty to disclose is to provide the parties with all the relevant facts to enable them to decide whether to accept or to challenge an arbitrator's appointment.(3)
This duty is articulated in Article 1452(2) of the code, which provides that an arbitrator who is aware of the existence of a reason requiring his or her disqualification has a duty to inform the parties and may accept appointment only if the parties confirm their approval of this appointment.
Most institutional rules, such as the ICC rules, provide that before his or her appointment, a prospective arbitrator must sign a statement of independence and disclose any facts or circumstances which might raise questions as to his or her independence in relation to the parties.(4)
In the February 12 2009 judgment the court defined the scope of the arbitrator's duty to disclose.
The court indicated the duration for which the duty is owed. The parties must be kept informed from the time of the arbitrator's appointment and throughout the arbitration proceedings. This requirement is clearly provided for in the ICC rules, which state that arbitrators "must be and remain" independent from the parties.(5) Even in the absence of an express provision, it is generally admitted that the duty of disclosure continues until an award is made.(6)
The court also decided the question of who owes the duty and ruled that it is not only the arbitrators themselves, but also the law firms of which they may be members and the parties that may be related to the arbitrators in question. The court noted that the chairman's firm employed a team that was responsible for managing conflicts of interest, which could have notified the arbitrator of the existence of a conflict. The court also considered that Tecnimont knew or should have known that its parent company or one of its subsidiaries was represented by the firm and therefore should have disclosed it.
Traditionally, the courts do not automatically set aside awards because of a failure to disclose information, but rather assess whether this gives rise to a sufficient presumption of a lack of independence on the part of the arbitrator.(7)
In this case, the court determined that there was a conflict of interest by looking at the services rendered by the firm employing the chairman of the arbitral tribunal.
The court considered that the accumulation of legal services provided by the chairman's firm to Tecnimont, its parent company and its subsidiary, and the amount of fees paid by Tecnimont carried significant weight.
The duty of independence owed by arbitrators requires that they may not be dependent on the parties for financial or hierarchical reasons. Accordingly, the court considered that the fact that the firm to which the chairman belonged had represented one of the parties to the arbitration in several matters gave rise to reasonable doubt as to his independence.
In order to determine the existence of a conflict of interest, the court considered the ties that existed between the chairman's firm and Tecnimont, but also other companies within the group of companies. The court also considered whether the chairman's firm was in conflict on a global level, rather than focusing its attention on the Paris office only.
This decision illustrates the strict approach adopted by the courts regarding the duty of independence. This approach is consistent with the International Bar Association (IBA) Guidelines on Conflict of Interest in International Arbitration, which contain a list of circumstances which should be disclosed and explain the importance that should be given to them. According to the guidelines, an arbitrator's law firm that has a significant commercial relationship with one of the parties or one of its affiliates falls under the 'waivable red list', which corresponds to serious situations that could give rise to doubts regarding the arbitrator's independence or impartiality, depending on the circumstances. However, because of their seriousness, such situations are considered waivable only if the parties confirm their intention to have a person act as arbitrator after becoming aware of the existence of the conflict of interest.(8)
Therefore, prospective arbitrators, firms that employ them and parties to arbitral proceedings must perform conflict searches extremely carefully, given that an arbitrator's lack of independence can be harshly penalized, as in this case, where the award was set aside and the costs awarded by the court were substantial.
For further information on this topic please contact Elie Kleiman at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer by telephone (+33 1 44 56 44 56 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +33 1 44 56 44 56 end_of_the_skype_highlighting) or by fax (+33 1 44 56 44 00) or by email (elie.kleiman@freshfields.com).
Endnotes
(1) Paris Court of Appeal, February 12 2009, RG 07/22164.
(2) Paris Court of Appeal, June 2 1989, TAI v SIAPE and Germanco v SAEPA, Rev arb 1991, p 87; Paris Court of Appeal, April 9 1992, Annahold BV v L'Oréal, Rev Arb 1996, p 483; Paris Court of Appeal, January 12 1996, Gouvernement de l'Etat du Qatar v Creighton Ltd, Rev arb 1996, p 428.
(3) IBA Guidelines on Conflict of Interest in International Arbitration, approved on May 22 2004 by the Council of the IBA; explanation to General Standard 3.
(4) Article 7(2) of the ICC rules, Article 9 of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Rules, Article 6 of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes Rules, Article 7 of the American Arbitration Association International Arbitration Rules, Article 5.3 of the London Court of International Arbitration Rules, Article 17 of the Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce.
(5) Article 7(1) of the ICC rules.
(6) Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration, E Gaillard and J Savage ed, 1999, para 1059.
(7) Seraglini, Droit de l'arbitrage, JCP Entreprise et Affaires 45, November 6 2003, 1588; Seraglini, Droit de l'arbitrage, JCP Entreprise et Affaires 50, December 9 2004, 1816.
(8) IBA Guidelines on Conflict of Interest in International Arbitration, approved May 22 2004 by the Council of the IBA, Part II, Practical Application of the General Standards.

 

[AMARIDONG]

Hii story inadhihirisha wazi kuwa Serikali ya Tanzania kumbe ina kila sababu ya kutowalipa Dowans. Tatizo ninaliona mimi ni kuwa Othman wa Usalama wa Taifa anaweza kumuagiza mdogo wake Othman Chande Jaji Mkuu amalize issue na mahakama kuu waruhusu Dowans walipwe fasta.

hao othman hawana undugu hamuelewagi mkiambiwa alaaaaa;;;inakera sasa kila siku mmekalia kupotosha watu

 

[AMARIDONG]

View attachment 19636

Rostam Aziz ..... huyu anastahili malipo ya fedha hizi 185b.... na siyo vingine

atapewa na shoga yake mkwere lakini sio watanzania

 

[Job K]

Hata hao Tanesco.. Hivi nani aliyewalazimisha kumkubali Dowans? Mkataba ulikuwa kati ya Richmond na Tanesco.. sasa leo Richmond wanakwambia kwamba hey huyu hapa Dowans hebu mchukue afanye kazi... Mbona TANESCO hawakuwauliza hao Richmond vipi mbona mkataba ulikuwa kati yetu iweje uniletee Dowans au kampuni nyingine ya Singapore wake kunizalishia umeme? Hivi hiki ndicho kilikuwa makaubaliano yetu? Mbona swali hili hatujui kama liliulizwa? na kama liliulizwa ya nini Tanesco hawakukataa there and then and mkataba uwa umevunjwa pale pale... Wao (Tanesco) wakajinyamazia kama Ma-***** fulani hivi na Dowans akakabidhiwa mfupa uliomshinda fisi... tangu lini Mbwa (MALIPO)akauweza?

kUHUSU hiyo registartion ya Award mbona inacheleweshwa sana kuandikishwa si wahusika waiandikishe basi (ASAP) ili tujue mbivu na mbichi kama tunalipa au la maana hii habari imebaki kuwa ya magazetini tu... na kuna msemo usema Justice delayed is justice denied.. yote yaanikwe ili tujue ukweli...

Na hata huko mahakamani wakipewa ki-note tu na executive brach kwamba hii kitu ni national interest tafuteni namna ya kulipa au kutolipa mahakama itatafuta tu njia maana majaji huwa ni watu mahiri katika kujau technicalities za mambo.. sidhani kama ruling ya watu wawili yaweza kutokukoselewa na jopo la majaji waliobobea kwa manufaa ya Tanzania... labda hao majaji wetu wasiwe na uchungu na mali za wananchi achalia mbani maliza serikali...

Mwisho kuna hapa panaposema kwamba "If TANESCO is forced to pay Dowans on the basis of the ICC ruling, just as it was forced to sign the Richmond/Dowans contract, this company will collapse." kwa nini wasiache ikolapse au wanajua wananchi wataingia barabarani na kumuondoa Kikwete madarakani maana ametajwa kuhusika na Dowans... si waache basi iko-lapse ili iujue namna ya kujikwamua na madeni?

Hivi TZ kuna viongozi kweli? Yaani yamenywea kama nini! Rais mwenyewe ndo huyo, Mwanasheria Mkuu naye ndo huyo! Hivi TZ tutafika kweli? Wnataka kulipana haraka haraka kwa vile wanajua kuna mgao wao humo jamani tumekwisha. Unashindwa kuelewa kulikuwa na nguvu gani iliyotumika kuwalazimisha TANESCO kuingia mkataba na DOWANS.

Kama kweli waTZ tuko makini wakilipa tu tuingie mitaani mpaka huyu Mkwere aikimbie Ikulu. Tatizo ninaloliona hapa ni nani wa kumfunga paka kengele!! Wanasheria wetu nao wala huwasikii, jamani hapo mlimani mlienda kufanya nini sasa tunawaomba mfungue kesi ya kuzuia hayo malipo haraka iwezekanavyo. Nimemsikia Mwanasheria mkuu anasema hii kesi hatuna ujanja lazima tulipe tu! Anasema hata ukilivalia njuga hizo njuga zitakatika tu wala hautafanikiwa!! Uuuwiii eti huyu ndo tulitegemea awe wa kwanza kulisimamia hili lakini tayari keshalegea kama mlenda!

 

[Rutashubanyuma]

Kichekesho kikubwa katika uamuzi wa DOWANS ni kuwa Msuluhishi alidai matendo ya watumishi wa Umma ya kukiuka sheria yanaweza kuhalalisha uvunjaji wa sheria ya manunuzi ya mwaka 2004 jambo siyo kweli hata kidogo ...........................na akatumia sheria hiyo hiyo ya manunuzi kudai ya kuwa kwa vile Mamlaka ya manunuzi nchini yenye mamlaka ya kuchunguza ukikaji wa sheria hiyo ilikaa kimya basi walihalallisha ukiukwaji huo......wakati sheria zipo wazi....parties to a suit can not and should not be permitted to conspire to break the law..................Huu ndiyo msimamo wa Mahakama ya Rufaa ya hapa nchini na unatosha kutengua hiyo AWARD.

Msuluhishi alichoaamua ni kuwa conspiracy to break by various actors to a deal legalizes an otherwise illegal acts.............How absurd................It wa a preposterous AWARD......na jingine la kujiuliza kwa nini kila wakati migogoro ya Tanesco inakwenda kuamuliwa na msuluhishi yule yule ambaye maamuzi yake kila wakati yanatuachia maumivu makali?

 

[Mdondoaji]

Kichekesho kikubwa katika uamuzi wa DOWANS ni kuwa Msuluhishi alidai matendo ya watumishi wa Umma ya kukiuka sheria yanaweza kuhalalisha uvunjaji wa sheria ya manunuzi ya mwaka 2004 jambo siyo kweli hata kidogo ...........................na akatumia sheria hiyo hiyo ya manunuzi kudai ya kuwa kwa vile Mamlaka ya manunuzi nchini yenye mamlaka ya kuchunguza ukikaji wa sheria hiyo ilikaa kimya basi walihalallisha ukiukwaji huo......wakati sheria zipo wazi....parties to a suit can not and should not be permitted to conspire to break the law..................Huu ndiyo msimamo wa Mahakama ya Rufaa ya hapa nchini na unatosha kutengua hiyo AWARD.

Msuluhishi alichoaamua ni kuwa conspiracy to break by various actors to a deal legalizes an otherwise illegal acts.............How absurd................It wa a preposterous AWARD......na jingine la kujiuliza kwa nini kila wakati migogoro ya Tanesco inakwenda kuamuliwa na msuluhishi yule yule ambaye maamuzi yake kila wakati yanatuachia maumivu makali?

Mkuu maamuzi gani mengine ICC imefanya tukaumia? Hebu fafanua kabla hujapandikiza mbegu za chuki zisizo na msingi ndugu.

 

[Percival]

Bana wewe lipa pesa ya Dowans. sisi pana taka tabu na International Community . Ile mambo ya taifisha au chukua mali ya watu kwa gufu kisha pita wakati yake. sasa ni wakati ya WTO , free trade, n.k. Wewe napata hiyo ? lipa haraka pesa ya watu pana leta domo refu. Just a humour.

 

[Fundi Mchundo]

Yale yale ya kumlaumu mwalimu ati alitunga mtihani mgumu! Haujajitayarisha, unashindwa. Ndiyo yaliyotukuta.

Amandla.......

 

[Saint Ivuga]

DOWANS SCANDAL...High Court to set aside ICC ruling

By ThisDay Reporter
7th January 2011

THE High Court of Tanzania will likely reject a ruling of the Paris-based International Court of Arbitration (ICC) that awarded highly controversial payments in favour of Dowans Holdings SA (Costa Rica)/Dowans Tanzania Limited, it has been revealed.

According to top legal experts in government, the High Court is well-placed to reject the ICC ruling because of gross irregularities in the proceedings of the case and the illegality of the actual ruling itself.

Section 15 of the Arbitration Act gives the High Court of Tanzania outright powers to dismiss the ICC ruling.

"Where an arbitrator or umpire has misconducted himself or an arbitration or award has been improperly procured, the court may set aside the award," says the legislation in part.

Before Dowans can claim any payment of funds, the complete ruling of the ICC has to be registered at the High Court of Tanzania to become enforceable by law.

But legal experts say enforcement of the ICC ruling would be unconstitutional because it would directly contravene the country's Public Procurement Act of 2004.

"One of the major flaws of the ICC ruling is that it unlawfully attempts to give legality to the Richmond/Dowans contract, which was deemed illegal under Tanzania's Public Procurement Act," a respected government lawyer told THISDAY.

The 2006 tender process was hijacked from TANESCO by the Ministry of Energy and Minerals and high-level government officials.

Former Prime Minister Edward Lowassa appointed a government negotiation team that finally awarded the contract to Richmond against TANESCO's expert advice.

"Section 31 of the Public Procurement Act explicitly states that no public body shall award any contract unless the award has been approved by the appropriate tender board," he said.

"Under the country's law, the Richmond/Dowans contract is the product of an illegal tendering system because it was not awarded by TANESCO's own tender board."

This was the basis for TANESCO's ultimate decision to terminate the contract assigned to Dowans Tanzania Limited by Richmond.

The dubious ICC ruling, which has not been fully made public by the International Chamber of Commerce itself, Dowans nor the government, orders the Tanzania Electric Supply Company (TANESCO) to pay Dowans tens of millions of dollars.

Contrary to a popularly quoted figure of 185.5 billion/-, it is understood that ICC has ordered TANESCO to pay Dowans around $64.2 million (97 billion/-), which is still a colossal amount of money.

"The High Court has power to either bless the ICC ruling or set it aside. In this case, since the ruling goes against the law of the land, the High Court will have little choice but to reject it," said another official close to the judiciary.

Well-placed government officials told THISDAY there was intense lobbying to ensure the government makes the payment ordered by ICC to the proprietors of Dowans as quickly as possible.

"Payment vouchers have been prepared at Treasury and all the relevant paperwork is ready to make swift payment to Dowans after the final go ahead is given," an official in the Ministry of Finance told THISDAY.

Prime Minister Mizengo Pinda and Attorney General Frederick Werema have separately issued controversial statements suggesting that the government was ready to make the illegal payment to Dowans.

However, legal experts say the government appears to be strangely rushing to make the payment while there is legal recourse for TANESCO to avoid the crippling payment.

The cash-strapped TANESCO has raised power tariffs by 18.5 percent effectively from January 1, but says it is still operating at a huge loss primarily due to monthly capacity charges being paid to Songas Limited and Independent Power Tanzania Limited (IPTL).

TANESCO's average monthly revenue collection amounts to around 40 billion/-.

Each month, the state-run power utility pays 6.1 billion/- to Songas and another 3.5 billion to IPTL in capacity charges alone, amounting to a staggering 9.6 billion/-.

"TANESCO spends another 5.5 billion/- each month to service a syndicated loan and doles out another 5 billion/- per month for various contractual commitments," said an official close to the energy sector.

"If TANESCO is forced to pay Dowans on the basis of the ICC ruling, just as it was forced to sign the Richmond/Dowans contract, this company will collapse."

TANESCO secured a syndicated loan of 300 billion/- in 2007 from various local commercial banks.

The highly-indebted public utility also recently obtained a loan of $468 million (approx. 700 billion/-) from the European Investment Bank, the World Bank, African Development Bank, Japan International Cooperation Agency and Korean Economic Development Cooperation Fund to strengthen the power transmission grid
source:Home*»*Insight*»*Politics

 

[Babu Lao]

Cha kushangaza ni hiyo speed ya kulipa hizo hela kwa watendaji wa serikali.....:shock: