Sovereign Immunity and the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Tanzania

Foreign arbitral awards against States expose a tension between arbitral finality and sovereign authority. This article examines how Tanzania should reconcile that tension by distinguishing recognition, enforcement and execution. Confined to Mainland Tanzania, it addresses awards against the United Republic in domestic and foreign courts, and awards against foreign States before Tanzanian courts. Using doctrinal and functional comparative analysis, it examines the New York Convention, the ICSID Convention, Tanzanian legislation and the immunity statutes of the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. No existing study connects Tanzania’s Arbitration Act, its Government Proceedings Act and the law of State immunity. The article finds that the Arbitration Act provides a workable route to recognition and enforcement, while section 17 of the Government Proceedings Act bars ordinary execution against Government property, save under a Cabinet-approved contractual arrangement. The two Acts answer different questions, are not coordinated and do not amount to a State immunity code. The Sunlodges litigation in Canada shows that this domestic uncertainty does not stop creditors from pursuing Tanzanian assets abroad. The article argues that valid arbitral consent should support jurisdiction and recognition, but that execution should require a distinct legal basis and an asset-specific inquiry. It recommends a State Immunity Act, separate treatment of execution waivers, protection for specified sovereign assets and a time-bound procedure for satisfying awards against the Government.