AFRICA SPECIAL ISSUE I consider it as a trifling misstatement which should not be hyped beyond what it is. 46 It is the author's view that the court was quite generous to the arbitrator who had effectively and deliberately made a dishonest statement in his CV to get the appointment. At least the court recognised this much, and the individual is named in the judgment which may possibly send a warning to future appointors of that individual, as well as to appointees generally. It is recognised that the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration (IBA Guidelines) do not make any provisions for such circumstances. However, it is the view of this author that the court could have been more severe with the arbitrator (to serve as a deterrent) and accepted the challenge. This would discourage the practice of dishonest inflation of CVs by prospective arbitrators. This issue is particularly important since appointors rely heavily on information on the CVs of arbitrators and any further disclosures they make on their experiences as arbitrators. It is obvious that appointors should be able to rely on such information. This decision was therefore a missed opportunity for the Tanzanian courts to help with sanitising the system. Interruption of Counsel during Submissions In the South African case of AJ Du Toit N.O. v The Road Accident Fund, 47 the respondent counsel during the arbitration sought an order from the arbitrator for the applicant to undergo a psychiatric assessment by a named psychiatrist. The sole arbitrator on its own accord initiated a debate on the impact of this request on the constitutional right to privacy of the applicant in the arbitration. The arbitrator also interrupted respondent counsel during the submissions and dismissed the application for the applicant to submit to psychiatric evaluation, made by the respondent. The respondent challenged the decision of the arbitrator on the basis that it was not given an opportunity to fully present its argument as the arbitrator summarily and unexpectedly dismissed the application, and that the actions of the arbitrator led the respondent to believe that the arbitrator was biased against it. The first instance judge found that the manner in which the arbitrator conducted himself was grossly irregular and displayed an attitude of pre-judgment, such that a fair-minded person would reasonably have suspected that he would not determine the question before him with a fair and unprejudiced mind. On appeal, a majority of the three judges agreed that the respondent in the arbitration was not given a fair opportunity to present its case properly and adequately. The dissent focused on the lack of proof of reasonable apprehension of bias by the respondent, which the judge noted was the high threshold set by the courts in South Africa for a finding of real or perceived bias. The dissent was of the view that the respondent was indeed given the opportunity to respond to the constitutional right to privacy issue and simply because the arbitrator was not impressed with their argument and dismissed the application would not amount to a grave irregularity or apparent bias. 46. Oryx Oil v OilCom [2022] at pages 14-15. 47. AJ Du Toit N.O. v The Road Accident Fund (A590/09) [2010] ZAWCHC 99. 398 The Paris Journal of International Arbitration 2023‑2