[2000] KEHC 418 (KLR)
The court held that the application to remit the arbitrator's award for reconsideration was incompetent and bad in law because it was filed more than three years after the award was read to the parties, far outside the thirty-day period prescribed by Order 45 rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court rejected...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] KEHC 418 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: John Mbugua Mungai; Defendant: Nyila Ndunda
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 50 of 1994
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Remit Arbitral Award for Reconsideration
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Arbitration Awards, Remission of Award, Time Limits for Applications, Court Powers Under Civil Procedure
- 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
John Mbugua Mungai
Plaintiff
Nyila Ndunda
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Remit Arbitral Award for Reconsideration
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application to remit the arbitrator's award for reconsideration was filed within the prescribed time limit under Order 45 rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the delay of over three years in bringing the application could be excused.
- 3 Whether the arbitrator's award was indefinite and inconclusive, justifying remission.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the application to remit the arbitrator's award for reconsideration was incompetent and bad in law because it was filed more than three years after the award was read to the parties, far outside the thirty-day period prescribed by Order 45 rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court rejected the argument that the rule was merely permissive regarding the time limit, finding that once a party chooses to apply, strict adherence to the thirty-day period is required. The applicant provided no explanation for the delay, and even if the rule were interpreted as permissive, a delay of over three years would still be inexcusable. Consequently, the prayers sought in the...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application to remit the arbitrator's award for reconsideration is declined.
- If the award was never made a judgment of this court, all is left to the parties to consider what best course to take.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
9 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
John Mbugua Mungai v Nyila Ndunda High Court of Kenya at Machakos February 21, 2000 J W Mwera, Judge Civil Case No 50 of 1994 February 21, 2000 J W Mwera, Judge delivered the following ruling.
Under review now is the defendant/applicant’s chamber summons dated April 23, 1999 and brought under Order 45 rule 4 Civil procedure Rule section 3A Civil procedure Act. The main ground is that the arbitrator’s award dated November 4, 1996 and read to the parties on December 13, 1996 be remitted to that arbitrator for reconsideration and filing of a conclusive award. The grounds on which the application was based, the affidavit in support thereof and the argument by Mrs Nzei were to the effect that the said award was indefinite, inconclusive as to the points it ought to have determined in the result that it could not be effected. That the arbitrator did not state whether the suit filed or otherwise and who would pay costs.
Mr Wambua who filed grounds of opposition held the view that the application was bad in law because it was not brought within 30 days after the award was read. There was indeed no explanation and satisfactory reason shown why the application came a whole 3 years, later contrary to Order 45 rule 16 Civil procedure Rules. That litigation must end at some stage. That rule reads:
“16. An application may be made under rules 12,13,14 and 15 within thirty days of receipt by the applicant of notice of filing of the award under rule 10 or where a date for reading the award has been fixed by the court under rule 10A within thirty days of that date.
” The court heard that this rule is permissivic by its use of the word “May” in making an application under rules 12,13,14 and 15. This application was made under rule 14. But in this court’s view that word “May” refers to allowing any party who feels so to apply. It does not mean that application under these rules is a must. But if a party chooses to apply then he has 30 days to do so after receiving notice of filing the award OR after the reading of the award. Thus after December 13, 1996 (the last opportunity to apply) when the award was read the applicant had 30 days to make this application under rule 14 ie by January 30, 1997 at the latest or as vacation days would allow. By bringing this application on July 10, 1999 it was incompetent and bad in law. Even for once, allowing that rule 16is permissive and the 30 days need not be adhered to, which position, this court does not agree with it would still be inexcusable to wait for more than 3 years to apply and besides have no explanation for the delay.
The prayers herein are declined.
If the award was never made a judgment of this court all is left to the parties to consider what best course to take.
Orders accordingly.