The applicants sought to extend an interim Mareva injunction restraining the United Republic of Tanzania from removing a newly purchased aircraft from Ontario, pending an application to recognize and enforce an international arbitral award.
Tanzania opposed the extension, arguing sovereign immunity, lack of full disclosure, and failure to meet the Mareva test.
The court rejected Tanzania's arguments, finding that by signing a Bilateral Investment Treaty and agreeing to UNCITRAL rules, Tanzania consented to interim measures.
The court extended the injunction, holding that the applicants had a strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience favoured them.