2022 PLP 752 (SCMR)
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, (WHO), ISLAMABAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ANSAR IQBAL — Respondent
| Citation | 2022 PLP 752 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Amin-ud-Din Khan and Jamal Khan Mandokhail, JJ |
| Parties | WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, (WHO), ISLAMABAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ANSAR IQBAL — Respondent |
| Primary Law | State Immunity Ordinance (VI of 1981) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 752 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: State Immunity Ordinance (VI of 1981) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP 752 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Amin-ud-Din Khan and Jamal Khan Mandokhail, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 752 (SCMR) (WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, (WHO), ISLAMABAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ANSAR IQBAL — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Gujjar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 22.03.2021 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Civil Revision No. 349 of 2015)
S. 4
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 201
Incorrect application of law by the High Court in its judgment
No precedential value of such judgment
World Health Organization (WHO)
Whether civil court had jurisdiction to try suit against the 'WHO'
Plea on behalf of WHO that civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit against it, under the contract between the parties in the light of Clause 16 of General Conditions of Contract which contained 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
Held, that stance of the petitioner/WHO held ground that the law had incorrectly been applied while dismissing the petition filed before the High Court
Determination of scope, limits and extent of diplomatic and state immunity clauses of various statutes needed further deliberations
However, since the matter between the parties stood resolved out of court, it would become an academic exercise to give any finding on the issue of state/ diplomatic immunity
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, impugned judgment of High Court was set-aside with the direction that the said judgment shall have no precedential value in term of Art. 201 of the Constitution. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, Additional A.G., Asad Burki, Legal Advisor MOFA and Syed Faraz Raza, Legal Advisor on Court's Notice.
Judgment & Decree
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 plaintiff/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 case. 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 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 judgment shall have no precedential value in term of Article 201 of the Constitution. MWA/W-1/SC Appeal allowed.