Latest News




Arbitration is the most common form of alternative dispute resolution in which parties avoid going to court. When the parties choose arbitration, they agree to bring their conflict to a person(s) of their choice or choose how they want to resolve it.

The arbitration agreement is then regarded as the legal tool for arbitration and its constitution, which establishes the scope and extent of the arbitration. The parties' will plays a crucial role in selecting the arbitrator/s.

The regulations of the arbitration centre would apply in institutional arbitration. The parties would then indicate their unambiguous desire for the arbitrators to be selected under the rules, regardless of whether the regulations require the parties to make the appointment in a specified manner or through the centre.


However, the issue arises in private "ad hoc" arbitration, particularly where the parties disagreed on the nomination of a lone arbitrator or the primary arbitrator in the case of a multi-arbitrator tribunal.

If the Arbitral Tribunal has three arbitrators, Egyptian law states that each party must appoint one arbitrator. Then the two parties or the two arbitrators must nominate the third arbitrator within thirty days of the previously chosen arbitrator's date.

If no agreement can be reached, or if another obstacle prevents the third arbitrator from carrying out his duties, such as if he refuses to be appointed or dies, becomes ill, or retires before or after the arbitration proceedings. No substitute can be found. The Egyptian courts will be responsible for making the decision.

According to article 17 of the Arbitration Law, if the arbitration is conducted in Egypt, or if the dispute is international in scope and is conducted outside of Egypt, and the parties have agreed to be governed by Egyptian Arbitration Law, the court may select an arbitrator.

The interested party must file a request for the arbitrator's appointment. The request must be communicated to the other party following the Egyptian Civil and Commercial Proceeding Law's standard procedures. Following then, the court considers the case using standard procedures. However, it is important to note that the court's decision in this matter is final and cannot be appealed.

Despite the abovementioned, challenging an arbitrator's appointment is limited, according to Article 17 of the Arbitration Law, to the decision of the competent court to select the arbitrator, and does not extend to the invalidity of the procedure for appointing the arbitrator, which shall remain subject to appeal in the manner outlined in the above-mentioned Procedural law.

A company had filed a legal action before the competent court to select an arbitrator in one of the instances. During the case, it was claimed that the arbitration agreement was fake. Therefore the court issued a preliminary award by referring the dispute to the forensic department, which decided that the questioned signature was genuine. As a result, the court ruled on the arbitration agreement's legitimacy and the arbitrator's appointment as a whole.

The ruling was appealed to the Court of Appeal because the appointment procedures used to choose the arbitrator were invalid under Article (44) of the Evidence Law, which prohibits the court from deciding on the agreement's validity and the subject of the dispute in the same judgement.

The Court of Appeal recognised these grounds and then ruled on the nullification of the First Instance judgement.


Finally, the purpose of this article is to emphasise that, while the judgement appointing an arbitrator is final and cannot be challenged through any method of appeal under Arbitration law, the judgement may be challenged under Egyptian Civil and Commercial Proceeding Law if the appointment procedures are found to be invalid.


This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being. Further, despite all efforts made to ensure the accuracy and correctness of the information published, White Code VIA Mediation and Arbitration Centre shall not be responsible for any errors caused due to human error or otherwise. 


BY : Aakrashi Jain

All Latest News