Awards, challenges, recognition and enforcement

Form, reasons and effects

Article 39 specifies the award’s elements, including the parties, agreement, dispute, arbitrators, place, date and signatures. Reasons are required subject to its exceptions, as is determination and allocation of costs. Article 48 governs correction, interpretation and additional awards; these mechanisms are not a general appeal on the merits.

Notification and deposit are governed by Article 42, including its exceptions and alternative arrangements. Article 43 gives the decision the effects of a court judgment between the parties and successors and makes a condemnatory award enforceable on the statutory terms. Interest, rate, accrual period and any compounding require a basis in the applicable law and claims; there is no single formula for every case.

Setting aside and the arbitral tribunal’s role

The LACM permits only a setting-aside challenge to the award, on Article 44 grounds. Subject to the statutory requirements, these include incapacity, invalidity of the agreement, notice or due-process failures, excess of mandate, irregular constitution or procedure, non-arbitrability and public policy. Setting aside is not a general reconsideration of the merits.

Article 45 requires filing before the arbitral tribunal within thirty days of notification of the award or the decision correcting, interpreting or supplementing it. It provides for a response and subsequent transmission to the court. Paragraph 3 assigns the tribunal the rejection of late applications or applications whose grounds do not comply with the preceding article; paragraph 4 permits recourse against rejection. Article 47 makes the right to seek setting aside non-waivable.

In his 2023 study, the author critically examines arbitrators’ power to reject a challenge to their own award because the grounds are inappropriate. His proposals include direct filing in court; if filing before the arbitral tribunal is retained, he proposes removing its power to assess the adequacy of the grounds. These are reform proposals, distinct from the description of current law.

Enforcement of domestic awards

Voluntary compliance is the first route. If it does not occur, Article 49 permits enforcement on its stated terms. Article 50 requires authenticated documentation of the agreement, award and supplementary decisions, together with evidence of notification and deposit and an official translation where necessary. Statutory arrangements and exceptions concerning deposit must be taken into account.

Objections to enforcement are specifically governed by Article 51. Its paragraphs must be read together, including paragraph 3 on raising setting-aside grounds in enforcement objections. Interaction with ordinary civil procedure does not permit the special arbitration regime to be disregarded. In its judgment of 15 April 2024, Case No. 66/23-R, the Maputo Higher Court of Appeal nullified a ruling on enforcement objections because the relevant statutory grounds had not been established.

Foreign awards and the New York Convention

For an award covered by the New York Convention, its scope, Mozambique’s reservation and Articles III–V and VII must be considered. Article IV addresses the authenticated original or duly certified copy of the award and agreement and a certified translation where required. Article V defines refusal grounds rather than providing a general merits appeal.

The 2019 Supreme Court judgments discussed here used review and confirmation proceedings and also examined Article 1096 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That reasoning must be read in context. The cumulative approach used in those cases should not be turned into an automatic list of additional Convention requirements for every covered award. Preparing an application requires the domestic procedural route to be reconciled with the Convention’s limits.

Where an award is challenged, suspended or set aside at the seat, Articles V(1)(e), VI and VII require specific analysis. Neither a pending challenge nor annulment should be addressed through a generic conclusion detached from the enforcement State and applicable framework.

The ICSID route and immunity from execution

Awards rendered under the Washington Convention follow the distinct system in Articles 53–55. Article 54 requires recognition of their binding character and enforcement of their pecuniary obligations as if contained in a final court judgment. The New York Convention’s refusal grounds do not transfer to this route.

Execution against assets follows the law of the enforcement State. Article 55 preserves immunity rules. Consent to arbitration and recognition of an award’s binding effect do not themselves mean that every State asset may be attached. Ownership, the use of the assets and the applicable property and immunity rules must be examined.