[2015] KEHC 4537 (KLR)
The court found that the Respondent had failed to comply with its order to provide security for the enforcement of the arbitral awards within the stipulated time. There was no opposition to the application for enforcement, and the awards remained unsettled. The court held that the requirements for enforcement under...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 4537 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Kabco Contractors Limited; Respondent: Unity Court Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Suit 322 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Enforcement of Arbitral Award
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Arbitral Award Enforcement, Arbitration Act Application, Commercial Contract Disputes
- 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
Kabco Contractors Limited
Applicant
Unity Court Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Enforcement of Arbitral Award
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the arbitral award and supplementary award should be enforced against the Respondent.
- 2 Whether the Respondent has complied with the court's order to provide security for enforcement of the awards.
- 3 Whether the Claimant is entitled to costs of the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Respondent had failed to comply with its order to provide security for the enforcement of the arbitral awards within the stipulated time. There was no opposition to the application for enforcement, and the awards remained unsettled. The court held that the requirements for enforcement under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act had been satisfied, and that it was just and proper to allow the application. Accordingly, the court granted the orders sought by the Claimant, including enforcement of the arbitral award and supplementary award, and awarded costs to the Claimant.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The Chamber Summons application dated 4th February 2015 is allowed as prayed.
- The arbitral award dated 10th February 2014 and supplementary award dated 10th June 2014 are enforced as decrees of the court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI COMMERCIAL & ADMIRALTY DIVISION
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL SUIT NO. 322 OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT NUMBER 5 OF 1995
AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BETWEEN
KABCO CONTRACTORS LIMITED ::::::::::: CLAIMANT
VERSUS
UNITY COURT LIMITED :::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The application before the court is a Chamber Summonsdated 4th February 2015 and filed in court on 18th February 2015 under Section 36(1) of the Arbitration Act by the Claimant. The application seeks the following orders:-
That arbitral award and the supplementary award made on the 10th February 2014 and 10th June 2014 be enforced.
That a decree be issued in favour of the Claimant against the Respondent in terms of the said award and the supplementary award.
Costs of the application be met by the Respondent.
The application is premised on the grounds that the Respondent has failed to provide security for the enforcement of the award as ordered by this court on 16th January 2015, and that both the Arbitral Award and the supplementary award dated 10th February 2014 and 10th June 2014 remain unsettled to date. In the premises it is in the interest of justice that an order for enforcement of the award and the supplementary award be issued.
The application is supported by affidavit of James Njeru Kathenya sworn on 18th February 2015. Mr. Kathenya describes himself as the Managing Director of the Claimant Company. He deponed that the Respondent has failed to settle the two awards despite being notified of the same and being required to pay the same.
The application is not opposed. When the same came for hearing on 24th April 2015 an advocate called Kuria held brief for Mr. Githinji and applied for adjournment which was not allowed. Mr. Kuria was not ready to proceed with the hearing of the application since he said his instructions were limited to applying for adjournment.
I have carefully considered the application. I have noted the award made on 10th February 2014 and a supplementary award made on 10th June 2014. On 16th January 2015 this court ordered the Respondents to provide security for the enforcement of the awards within 7 days of that Ruling, but the Respondent has not done that. In that event, the application for the enforcement of the award is merited.
In the upshot, the Chamber Summons application dated 4th February 2015 is allowed as prayed with costs to the Claimants.
Orders accordingly.
READ, DELIVERED AND DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 29TH DAY OF MAY 2015
E. K. O. OGOLA
JUDGE
PRESENT:
Mr. Kiriaria for the Claimants
No appearance for the Respondent
Teresia – Court Clerk