https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10413

Mushangi v Florissant Limited (Miscellaneous Application E012 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 10413 (KLR) (Commercial and Tax) (2 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10413 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts) Commercial and Tax Miscellaneous Application E012 of 2026 MO Ado, J July 2, 2026 Between Derrick James Mushangi Applicant and Florissant Limited Respondent Ruling Introduction 1.By a Chamber Summons dated 18th February 2026 brought pursuant to Section 36 of the Arbitration Act, 1995 and Rule 9 of the Arbitration Rules, 1997, the Applicant seeks orders that:i.The Final Arbitral Award dated 22nd December 2025 rendered by the Sole Arbitrator, Ms. Noreen Kidunduhu, MCIArb, be recognised and adopted as a decree of this Court;ii.The Deputy Registrar be directed to issue a decree in terms of the Award; andiii.Costs of the application be borne by the Respondent. 2.The application is supported by the affidavit of the Applicant and is premised on the grounds that the parties entered into a Building Contract dated 7th April 2024. The contract contained an arbitration clause under Clause 10 providing for resolution of disputes through arbitration. 3.The Applicant deposed that a dispute subsequently arose between the parties and was referred to arbitration pursuant to the Arbitration Act, 1995 and the CIArb (Kenya Branch) Arbitration Rules, 2020. 4.Following her appointment by the Chairman of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Kenya Branch), the Sole Arbitrator conducted the proceedings and rendered a Final Arbitral Award dated 22nd December 2025 in favour of the Applicant. 5.Under the Award, the Respondent was directed to pay the Applicant a sum of KES 2,638,955.24 together with interest within thirty (30) days. The Applicant contends that despite service of the Award, the Respondent has failed to satisfy the same, thereby necessitating the present application. 6.The record shows that the Respondent was duly served with the Application, Supporting Affidavit and subsequent Mention Notices, as evidenced by the Affidavits of Service sworn on 13th March 2026 and 15th April 2026. Despite such service, the Respondent neither filed a response nor participated in these proceedings. 7.The Application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Applicant, through the Githara & Associates Advocates, filed submissions dated 2nd June 2026. Analysis and Determination 8.I have duly considered the Application, the Supporting Affidavit and the Applicant’s written submissions on record. 9.The sole issue for determination is whether the Applicant has satisfied the requirements for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act. 10.Section 36(1) and (3) of the Arbitration Act provides: 11.“(1)A domestic arbitral award shall be recognised as binding and, upon application in writing to the High Court, shall be enforced subject to this section and section 37....(3)Unless the High Court otherwise orders, the party relying on an arbitral award or applying for its enforcement must furnish—(a)the original arbitral award or a duly certified copy of it; and(b)the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy of it.” 12.In the present case, the Applicant has exhibited a certified copy of the Building Contract dated 7th April 2024, marked “DJM-1”, which contains the arbitration agreement under Clause 10. 13.The Applicant has also exhibited a certified copy of the Final Arbitral Award dated 22nd December 2025, marked “DJM-4”. 14.I am therefore satisfied that the Applicant has complied with the requirements of Section 36(3) of the Arbitration Act. 15.Further, there is no application before the Court seeking to set aside the Award under Section 35 of the Arbitration Act, nor has the Respondent raised any of the grounds set out under Section 37 upon which recognition or enforcement may be refused. 16.The policy of the Arbitration Act, as espoused under Section 10 of the Act, is to uphold the finality of arbitral awards and to limit judicial intervention except in circumstances expressly provided by statute. 17.The Supreme Court in Nyutu Agrovet Limited v Airtel Networks Kenya Limited; Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Kenya Branch) (Interested Party), [2019] KESC 11 (KLR) (6 December 2019), held that courts should respect the autonomy of the arbitral process and intervene only within the confines of the Arbitration Act. 18.In the absence of any challenge to the Award and having satisfied myself that the statutory requirements have been met, I find no basis for declining recognition and enforcement of the Award. 19.Consequently, the Chamber Summons dated 18th February 2026 is allowed in the following terms:i.The Final Arbitral Award dated 22nd December 2025 rendered by Ms. Noreen Kidunduhu, MCIArb, is hereby recognised and adopted as a judgment and decree of this Court.ii.Leave is hereby granted to the Applicant to enforce the said Award as a decree of this Court.iii.The Applicant shall have the costs of this application, which is hereby assessed for Kshs. 50,000/=. 20.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 2ND DAY OF JULY 2026HON. MR. JUSTICE MOSES ADOJUDGE OF THE HIGH COURTIn the Presence of:Moses C/A……………… for the Applicant……………for the Respondent