World Health Organization, (Who), Islamabad vs Muhammad Ansar Iqbal
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment concerning the applicability of the State Immunity Ordinance, 1981, in a civil suit filed against the World Health Organization. The core legal question presented was whether the civil court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the suit given the existence of an arbitration clause in the parties' contract, and whether the High Court correctly applied the provisions of the State Immunity Ordinance, 1981. During the proceedings, it was disclosed that the underlying dispute had been settled out of court, with the plaintiff withdrawing the suit. Consequently, the Supreme Court determined that addressing the complex issues regarding the scope and limits of diplomatic and state immunity would be an academic exercise. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and set aside the High Court's judgment. Crucially, the Court held that the impugned High Court judgment shall have no precedential value, thereby preventing it from serving as a binding authority on the interpretation of state immunity provisions in future litigation.
- Does a judgment rendered in a matter that has become moot due to an out-of-court settlement retain precedential value under Article 201 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can the Supreme Court set aside a High Court judgment and declare it to have no precedential value when the underlying dispute has been resolved by the parties?
- Section 4, State Immunity Ordinance 1981
- Article 201, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---W e have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, Additional Attorney General present before us. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that actually the matter has been settled out of the Court and the plaintif f/respondent has withdrawn his suit on 10.12.2016. The only question for which this Court has been approached is that the learned High Court has wrongly applied the State Immunity Ordinance No.VI of 1981 and section 4 thereof. The case of the petitioner before the trial court as well as High Court and this Court is that the civil court was having no jurisdiction to enterta in and try the suit against the petitioner , under the contract between the parties in the light of Clause 16 of General Conditions of Contract which contains amicable settlement between the parties in accordance with the practice and through conciliation in accordance with the conciliation rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law ("UNCITRAL") and through the mode of arbitration in accordance with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, therefore, the civil court was having no jurisdiction.
2. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. The stance of the petitioner holds ground that the law has incorrectly been applied while dismissing the petition filed before the High Court is correct in the facts and circumstances of this case. The determination of scope, limits and extent of diplomatic and state immunity clauses of various statut es need further deliberations. However , since the matter between the parties stand resolved out of court, it would become an academic exercise to give any finding on the issue of state/diplomatic immunity . In this view of the matter we convert this petition into appeal and allow the same. We set aside the judgment passed by the High Court and hold further that the said judgm ent shall have no precedential value in term of Article 201 of the Constitution.