[2025] KEHC 1675 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 1675 (KLR)

The Court held that its power under section 35 of the Arbitration Act is limited and does not extend to reopening the entire arbitral process or appointing a new arbitrator unless expressly provided by law. The ruling of Chepkwony J set aside the adoption of the award due to lack of finality but did not impugn the arbitrator's capacity or conduct. The appropriate course, as per section 35(4) of the Arbitration Act, is to remit the matter to the same arbitrator to address the incomplete issues identified by the Court. The applicant's allegations of conflict of interest and incompetence were previously determined and rejected. The Court is bound by the doctrine of finality in arbitration...

Citation
[2025] KEHC 1675 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Junctions Apartments; Respondent: CM Construction EA Limited; Respondent: Stephen Wandei Oundo
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
6 February 2025
Case Number
Commercial Arbitration Cause E030 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Cause / Post Award, Application for Further Directions After Partial Setting Aside of Adoption Order
Outcome
Matter remitted to the original arbitrator to address incomplete issues as per prior court directions.
Judges
A Mabeya
Legal Topics
Arbitral Award Finality, Court Intervention in Arbitration, Appointment of Arbitrator, Setting Aside Award, Conflict of Interest in Arbitration
Source Language
English
Alternative Dispute Resolution Commercial and Corporate Arbitral Award Finality Court Intervention in Arbitration Appointment of Arbitrator Setting Aside Award Conflict of Interest in Arbitration

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Junctions Apartments

Applicant

CM Construction EA Limited

Respondent

Stephen Wandei Oundo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Cause / Post Award, Application for Further Directions After Partial Setting Aside of Adoption Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the effect of the ruling of 2/7/2024 setting aside the adoption of the arbitral award.
  2. 2 What is the Court’s mandate over an arbitrator’s award under the Arbitration Act.
  3. 3 Should the court order a fresh arbitration or remit the matter to the same arbitrator.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that its power under section 35 of the Arbitration Act is limited and does not extend to reopening the entire arbitral process or appointing a new arbitrator unless expressly provided by law. The ruling of Chepkwony J set aside the adoption of the award due to lack of finality but did not impugn the arbitrator's capacity or conduct. The appropriate course, as per section 35(4) of the Arbitration Act, is to remit the matter to the same arbitrator to address the incomplete issues identified by the Court. The applicant's allegations of conflict of interest and incompetence were previously determined and rejected. The Court is bound by the doctrine of finality in arbitration...

Court Disposition

Matter remitted to the original arbitrator to address incomplete issues as per prior court directions.

Orders

  • The matter is remitted to the arbitrator to comply with the directions of Chepkwony J and determine the matters set out in determination nos. 3 and 4 of the award with finality.