[2009] KEHC 3767 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 3767 (KLR)

The court found that the award adopted as judgment on 13th June 2003 was the same award that had previously been set aside on 31st October 1996. There was no evidence that a new award from the D.O. Maragwa had ever been filed or read to the parties. The respondent's advocate, with knowledge of these facts, misled...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 3767 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Julius Njuguna Njeru; Defendant: Mwaura Kirima
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 161 of 1991
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Chamber Summons Application for Review and Setting Aside of Judgment
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
MSA Makhandia
Legal Topics
Arbitration Awards, Review of Judgment, Error on Face of Record
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Arbitration Awards Review of Judgment Error on Face of Record

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julius Njuguna Njeru

Plaintiff

Mwaura Kirima

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Chamber Summons Application for Review and Setting Aside of Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the judgment adopted on 13th June 2003 was based on a valid arbitration award.
  2. 2 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record justifying review and setting aside of the judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's advocate misled the court into adopting a non-existent or previously set aside award.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the award adopted as judgment on 13th June 2003 was the same award that had previously been set aside on 31st October 1996. There was no evidence that a new award from the D.O. Maragwa had ever been filed or read to the parties. The respondent's advocate, with knowledge of these facts, misled the court into reading and adopting a non-existent or previously set aside award. This constituted a clear error apparent on the face of the record. The court held that the judgment and all subsequent orders based on the non-existent award were irregular, illegal, and must be set aside. The court further found that the respondent's advocate's conduct warranted a personal order...

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The application dated 28th June 2007 is allowed in its entirety.
  • The judgment and all subsequent orders made on and after 13th June 2003 are reviewed and set aside.