[2021] KEHC 194 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 194 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant, having failed to comply with the arbitrator's directions regarding the jurisdictional objection and having proceeded with the arbitration without raising the issue at the appropriate time, was deemed to have waived its right to object to the arbitrator's jurisdiction under section 5 of the Arbitration Act. The arbitrator's finding that the applicant abandoned its objection was upheld. The court further held that the applicant did not provide evidence of bias, fraud, or breach of public policy sufficient to set aside the award under section 35 of the Arbitration Act. The respondent's application for recognition and enforcement of the award was allowed,...

Citation
[2021] KEHC 194 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Assa Abloy (E.A.) Limited; Respondent: Top Security Systems Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
3 November 2021
Case Number
Cause E006 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award and Application for Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Award
Outcome
Applicant's application to set aside the arbitral award dismissed; respondent's application for recognition and enforcement of the award allowed.
Judges
DAS Majanja
Legal Topics
Arbitration Agreements, Setting Aside Awards, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Jurisdiction of Arbitrator, Waiver of Objection, Public Policy
Source Language
English
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Arbitration Agreements Setting Aside Awards Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Jurisdiction of Arbitrator Waiver of Objection Public Policy

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Assa Abloy (E.A.) Limited

Applicant

Top Security Systems Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award and Application for Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine the dispute under the Sub Lease agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant waived its right to object to the arbitrator's jurisdiction.
  3. 3 Whether the arbitral award should be set aside under section 35 of the Arbitration Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant, having failed to comply with the arbitrator's directions regarding the jurisdictional objection and having proceeded with the arbitration without raising the issue at the appropriate time, was deemed to have waived its right to object to the arbitrator's jurisdiction under section 5 of the Arbitration Act. The arbitrator's finding that the applicant abandoned its objection was upheld. The court further held that the applicant did not provide evidence of bias, fraud, or breach of public policy sufficient to set aside the award under section 35 of the Arbitration Act. The respondent's application for recognition and enforcement of the award was allowed,...

Court Disposition

Applicant's application to set aside the arbitral award dismissed; respondent's application for recognition and enforcement of the award allowed.

Orders

  • The Applicant’s Originating Notice of Motion dated 22nd December 2020 is dismissed.
  • The Respondent’s Chamber Summons dated 6th May 2021 is allowed; the Final Arbitral Award dated 4th November 2020 and the Costs Award dated 8th March 2020 are recognized as a judgment of the court.