[2000] KEHC 495 (KLR)

[2000] KEHC 495 (KLR)

The court found that the arbitration proceedings and resulting award were invalid because they were conducted by the Assistant Chief of Bulbul Location, rather than the District Officer Ngong as specifically ordered by the court. The District Officer had no authority to delegate his role as umpire, and the Assistant Chief's involvement was ultra vires the court order. Consequently, the award upon which judgment was entered was a nullity. The applicant's claim of ignorance due to counsel's failure to communicate was not accepted as a sufficient ground for review, but the fundamental procedural defect in the arbitration process constituted a mistake apparent on the face of the record,...

Citation
[2000] KEHC 495 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Eric Peter Wanjau; Defendant: George Mundet
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
22 August 2000
Case Number
Civil Suit 3257 of 1978
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Review and Related Applications
Outcome
Application for review allowed in terms of vacating the judgment based on the invalid arbitration award; applicant to pay thrown away costs.
Judges
E Owuor
Legal Topics
Arbitration Award Review, Enforcement of Judgments, Land Transfer Disputes, Procedural Irregularity
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land and Property Arbitration Award Review Enforcement of Judgments Land Transfer Disputes Procedural Irregularity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric Peter Wanjau

Plaintiff

George Mundet

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Review and Related Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration proceedings and resulting award were valid in accordance with the court's order.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant demonstrated sufficient grounds for review of the judgment under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's lack of participation due to alleged counsel negligence justified setting aside the judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arbitration proceedings and resulting award were invalid because they were conducted by the Assistant Chief of Bulbul Location, rather than the District Officer Ngong as specifically ordered by the court. The District Officer had no authority to delegate his role as umpire, and the Assistant Chief's involvement was ultra vires the court order. Consequently, the award upon which judgment was entered was a nullity. The applicant's claim of ignorance due to counsel's failure to communicate was not accepted as a sufficient ground for review, but the fundamental procedural defect in the arbitration process constituted a mistake apparent on the face of the record,...

Court Disposition

Application for review allowed in terms of vacating the judgment based on the invalid arbitration award; applicant to pay thrown away costs.

Orders

  • The judgment entered on 26th March, 1993 is set aside.
  • The purported arbitration award filed and read on 2nd December, 1992 is declared a nullity.