[2023] KEHC 22172 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 22172 (KLR)

The court held that after an arbitral award is recognised and adopted as a judgment, the normal incidents of the Civil Procedure Act and Rules apply to the judgment, but the award itself cannot be disturbed. The respondent's application was incompetent because the matter was not commenced by plaint, and the respondent failed to demonstrate why it did not attend court during the recognition and enforcement proceedings. The respondent's director, not being a party to the suit, should have filed objection proceedings if his personal property was affected. The application failed to set out a proper defence or attach a draft defence, and the relief sought was incongruent with the subject...

Citation
[2023] KEHC 22172 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Ascent Limited; Respondent: Office Code Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
15 September 2023
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application E751 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Post Award Application to File Defence After Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Award
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the applicant
Judges
DAS Majanja
Legal Topics
Arbitral Award Enforcement, Setting Aside Judgment, Service of Process, Ex Parte Hearing
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Arbitral Award Enforcement Setting Aside Judgment Service of Process Ex Parte Hearing

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ascent Limited

Applicant

Office Code Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Post Award Application to File Defence After Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can allow the respondent to file a defence after the arbitral award has been recognised and adopted as a judgment of the court.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's application is competent where the matter was commenced by chamber summons for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, not by plaint.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's director, not being a party to the suit, can seek protection of personal property through the present application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that after an arbitral award is recognised and adopted as a judgment, the normal incidents of the Civil Procedure Act and Rules apply to the judgment, but the award itself cannot be disturbed. The respondent's application was incompetent because the matter was not commenced by plaint, and the respondent failed to demonstrate why it did not attend court during the recognition and enforcement proceedings. The respondent's director, not being a party to the suit, should have filed objection proceedings if his personal property was affected. The application failed to set out a proper defence or attach a draft defence, and the relief sought was incongruent with the subject...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the applicant

Orders

  • The respondent's application dated August 28, 2023 is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the applicant.