[2021] KEELC 613 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 613 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants had not complied with the statutory requirement under Section 32B(4) of the Arbitration Act to deposit the arbitral tribunal's fees and expenses in court before seeking an order for the release of the final award. The evidence showed that while the respondents had paid their share...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 613 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Jaswinder Singh Virdi; Applicant: Balji Singh Virdi; Respondent: Sekandi Holdings Ltd; Respondent: Michael S. K. Mukasa; Respondent: Albert S. K. Mukasa
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 1221 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Judges
LC Komingoi
Legal Topics
Arbitration Awards, Interlocutory Injunctions, Costs and Interest, Land Disputes, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Alternative Dispute Resolution Arbitration Awards Interlocutory Injunctions Costs and Interest Land Disputes Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jaswinder Singh Virdi

Applicant

Balji Singh Virdi

Applicant

Sekandi Holdings Ltd

Respondent

Michael S. K. Mukasa

Respondent

Albert S. K. Mukasa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the court should order the arbitrator to release the final award.
  2. 2 Whether prohibitory orders restraining the respondents from interfering with the suit property should be granted pending the arbitral award.
  3. 3 Whether attachment of one unit of the apartments should be ordered pending the arbitral award.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had not complied with the statutory requirement under Section 32B(4) of the Arbitration Act to deposit the arbitral tribunal's fees and expenses in court before seeking an order for the release of the final award. The evidence showed that while the respondents had paid their share of the fees, the applicants had not. The arbitral tribunal had made it clear that the final award would only be issued upon receipt of all outstanding payments. Additionally, the applicants failed to meet the conditions for the grant of prohibitory orders as set out in Giella v Cassman Brown, having not demonstrated a prima facie case or risk of irreparable harm. There was...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the defendants/respondents.