[2020] KEHC 4666 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 4666 (KLR)

The court held that a misapprehension of facts or an error of law by an arbitrator does not, in itself, amount to a conflict with public policy sufficient to set aside an arbitral award under Section 35 of the Arbitration Act. The court emphasized that parties who choose arbitration accept the finality of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 4666 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Comroad Construction & Equipment Limited; Defendant: Iberdrola Engineering & Construction Company
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
28 April 2020
Case Number
Civil Case 579 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
F Tuiyott
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Arbitral Award, Public Policy Exception, Breach of Contract, Special and General Damages
Source Language
english
Alternative Dispute Resolution Commercial and Corporate Setting Aside Arbitral Award Public Policy Exception Breach of Contract Special and General Damages

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Comroad Construction & Equipment Limited

Plaintiff

Iberdrola Engineering & Construction Company

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a misapprehension of evidence or error in law by an arbitrator is sufficient cause to set aside an arbitral award as being against public policy.
  2. 2 Whether the arbitral award in question is inconsistent with Kenyan public policy due to alleged errors regarding unpleaded issues, proof of special damages, general damages for breach of contract, and the legal effect of statutory compliance certificates.
  3. 3 Whether the award amounts to unjust enrichment and is therefore contrary to public policy.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a misapprehension of facts or an error of law by an arbitrator does not, in itself, amount to a conflict with public policy sufficient to set aside an arbitral award under Section 35 of the Arbitration Act. The court emphasized that parties who choose arbitration accept the finality of the process, including the risk of factual or legal errors, unless such errors result in an outcome that is patently illegal, unconstitutional, or offensive to the public interest. The applicant failed to demonstrate how the alleged errors by the arbitrator met this threshold. The court found that the arbitrator's findings regarding statutory compliance, pleading and proof of VAT refund,...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 25th June 2019 is dismissed in its entirety with costs to the respondent.