[2023] KEELC 17048 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant requires leave to appeal the decision dismissing its application to set aside the arbitral award, as the right of appeal is not automatic under the Arbitration Act and Civil Procedure Act. The court held that it is functus officio regarding the substantive dispute between the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 17048 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Jitihada Furniture Centre Ltd; Respondent: Asad Anwar
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 248 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome
- application allowed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- LN Mbugua
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Arbitral Award Challenge, Functus Officio, Right of Appeal, Costs Award
- 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
Jitihada Furniture Centre Ltd
Applicant
Asad Anwar
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to leave to appeal the court's decision dismissing its application to set aside the arbitral award.
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal under the Arbitration Act and Civil Procedure Act.
- 3 Whether the court is functus officio after delivering its ruling on the application to set aside the arbitral award.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant requires leave to appeal the decision dismissing its application to set aside the arbitral award, as the right of appeal is not automatic under the Arbitration Act and Civil Procedure Act. The court held that it is functus officio regarding the substantive dispute between the parties, having already delivered its ruling on the application to set aside the award. However, the court determined that the applicant's request for leave to appeal is properly before it and that the authorities cited by the applicant support the grant of such leave. The court allowed the application for leave to appeal, but clarified that the validity of any subsequent appeal can...
Court Disposition
application allowed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application dated 9.3.2022 is allowed.
- The respondent/defendant is awarded the cost of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Jitihada Furniture Centre Ltd v Anwar (Environment & Land Case 248 of 2018) [2023] KEELC 17048 (KLR) (20 April 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 17048 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Environment & Land Case 248 of 2018
LN Mbugua, J
April 20, 2023
Between
Jitihada Furniture Centre Ltd
Applicant
and
Asad Anwar
Respondent
Ruling
1. Coming up for determination is the application dated 9. 3.2022 where the plaintiff is seeking leave to appeal this courts decision of 23. 2.2022.
2. The application is premised on the grounds set out on the face of the application and on the Supporting Affidavit of one Ally I. Mwangi, who is the managing director of the applicant.
3. The applicant contends that they were aggrieved by the decisions of this court of 25. 3.2022 in which plaintiffs application dated 10. 3.2021 was dismissed. In their submissions dated 1. 3.2023, the applicants contend that without leave of this court, the applicant is not entitled to lodge the notice of appeal. In support of their arguments, the applicants have relied on the cases of: Peter Nyaga Muvake v Joseph Mutunga [2015] eKLR, Kenya Electricity Transmission Co. Limited (Ketraco) v Instalaciones Inabensa S.A (Miscellaneous Application E56 of 2021) [2021] KECA 151 (KLR) (19 November 221) (Ruling) and Kenya Union of Savings & Credit Co-operative Limited v Onsando Osiemo T/A Onsando Osiemo & Company Advocates [2014] eKLR.
4. The Respondent who is the defendant in the suit has opposed the application vide his Replying Affidavit dated 25. 11. 2022 were he avers that in tandem with the provisions of Section 35 of the Arbitration Act, there is no right of appeal from a decision of the High Court. That under Section 39 thereof the court can only determine an application on appeal on questions arising from the award, if the parties had agreed that such an appeal could be made.
5. I have considered all the arguments raised herein. It is noted that there is an arbitral award which was published on 14. 12. 2020 of which the plaintiffs/applicant made an application dated 10. 3.2021 seeking orders inter-alia to set side the said award. Vide a ruling delivered by this court on 23. 2.2022, the court dismissed the application. It follows that this court is functus officio in so far as the dispute between the two protagonist is concerned. This court cannot therefore purport to consider such questions as to whether the arbitral tribunal over stepped its mandate or not.
6. The applicant desires to appeal against the said ruling but they cannot do so by dint of section 75 of Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 of Civil Procedure Rules. To this end, I find that the cases cited by the applicant are applicable herein. The question as to the validity of the appeal can only be canvassed once such an appeal comes into existence.
7. In the circumstances the application dated 9. 3.2022 is allowed but the Respondent/defendant is awarded the cost of the said application. The Notice of Appeal to be lodged within 14 days from the date of delivery of this ruling otherwise the leave granted herein shall lapse.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:-Athman holding brief for Khan for RespondentEssami holding brief for Nyamu for ApplicantCourt assistant: Joan