[2017] KEHC 9877 (KLR)
The court found that the defendant failed to prove that the document containing the arbitration clause was the contract binding the parties. The document produced by the defendant was unsigned, undated, incomplete, and did not bear the plaintiff's name. The plaintiff's documents were not challenged for authenticity....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 9877 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Jamwa Consolidated Agencies (K) Limited; Defendant: UAP Insurance Company Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 41 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Arbitration
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
- Legal Topics
- Insurance Contracts, Arbitration Clauses, Stay of Proceedings
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jamwa Consolidated Agencies (K) Limited
Plaintiff
UAP Insurance Company Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Arbitration
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should stay proceedings to allow arbitration as per the alleged arbitration clause in the insurance policy.
- 2 Whether the insurance policy containing the arbitration clause was executed by both parties and forms the contract between them.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendant failed to prove that the document containing the arbitration clause was the contract binding the parties. The document produced by the defendant was unsigned, undated, incomplete, and did not bear the plaintiff's name. The plaintiff's documents were not challenged for authenticity. Therefore, the court was not persuaded that there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties, and as such, there was no basis to stay the proceedings or refer the matter to arbitration. The defendant's application was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
Orders
- The application dated 22nd April 2016 is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
COMMERCIAL AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION
CIVIL SUIT NO. 41 OF 2016
JAMWA CONSOLIDATED AGENCIES (K) LIMITED..........PLAINTIFF
UAP INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED...........................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. The defendant has asked the court to stay the proceedings in this case, so that the dispute between the parties can be resolved through arbitration.
2. In the alternative, the defendants ask the court to strike out the suit pending arbitration.
3. It is the defendant’s case that the Policy of Insurance which forms the substratum of the suit, contains an Arbitration Clause. Therefore, by filing suit in court, before the parties had given arbitration an opportunity to resolve the disputes between them, the plaintiff is said to have acted prematurely and improperly.
4. The defendant submitted that pursuant to Section 6 (1) of the Arbitration Act, when there was an arbitration clause in a contract, the court was obliged to stay any court proceedings unless the agreement was null and void, or if the matters in dispute within the court case were not related.
5. There is no doubt that the defendant’s understanding of Section 6 (1) of the Arbitration Act is accurate, as it is derived expressly from the wording of that section.
6. At this point, I find it useful to set out herein the provisions of the said Section 6 (1), which is in the following terms;
“A court before which proceedings are brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party so applies not later than the time when the party enters appearance or otherwise acknowledges the claim against which the stay of proceedings is sought, stay the proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds –
a. that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed; or
b. that there is not in fact any dispute between the parties with regard to the matters agreed to be referred to arbitration?.
7. The substantive answer from the plaintiff is that the policy of Insurance which allegedly contains the arbitration agreement was not executed by the parties to this suit.
8. On the one hand, the parties are in agreement that there is a contract between them, but on the other hand there is no consensus between them as to the actual document which constitutes the contract.
9. The defendant has produced a document marked “A?, which is named “Goods in Transit Policy Document?.
10. Nowhere in that document does the plaintiff’s name appear. Secondly, the document is neither dated nor signed by the parties to this suit.
11. Thirdly, the document appears to be incomplete, as it makes reference to a Schedule, but no such schedule is exhibited.
12. Meanwhile, the plaintiff exhibited documents relating to the Original Policy No. 020/0621/1/003663/2011 and Policy renewal No. 020/062/3/001533/2013.
13. Notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff disowned the document which the defendant exhibited, the defendant did not make any attempts to persuade the court that the said document was the embodiment of the contract between the parties.
14. A comparison between the 2 sets of documents leads me to conclude, on a prima facie basis, that the unsigned and undated document which the defendant produced in evidence is probably not the contract document. I have arrived at that conclusion, inter alia because the defendant did not challenge the authenticity of the documents produced by the plaintiff.
15. In the final analysis, as the court has not been persuaded that the document containing the arbitration clause was the contract document, I cannot use it as a basis for either ordering the stay of proceedings or of referring this case to arbitration.
16. Accordingly, the application dated 22nd April 2016 is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this17th dayof January2017.
FRED A. OCHIENG
JUDGE
Ruling read in open court in the presence of
No appearance for the Plaintiff
Chengecha for the Defendant
Collins Odhiambo – Court clerk