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 state immunity in a civil suit filed against the World Health Organization (WHO). The petitioner contended that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit due to an arbitration clause in the contract requiring dispute resolution via UNCITRAL rules, and further argued that the High Court had misapplied the State Immunity Ordinance 1981. During the proceedings, the petitioner informed the Supreme Court that the underlying dispute had been settled out of court and the respondent had withdrawn the suit. Consequently, the Supreme Court determined that addressing the complex legal questions regarding the scope and limits of diplomatic and state immunity would constitute an academic exercise. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and set aside the High Court's judgment. Crucially, the Supreme Court ruled that the set-aside judgment shall have no precedential value under Article 201 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, thereby preventing the lower court's findings on immunity from binding future litigation.
- Should a court refrain from deciding complex legal issues regarding state immunity when the underlying dispute has been settled out of court?
- Can a judgment that is set aside by the Supreme Court retain any precedential value under Article 201 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Section 4, State Immunity Ordinance 1981
- Article 201, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
Amin-ud-Din Khan, J --We 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for the petitioner states that actually the matter has been settled out of the Court and the plaintif f/respondent has withdrawn his suit on 10.12.2016.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 entertain 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 cue. The determination of scope, limits and extent of diplomatic and state immunity clauses of various statutes 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 C 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 judge ment shall have no precedential value in term of Article 201 of the Constitution.